The israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Belgian point of view.

[IceBlaZe]

"Arafat has come under increasing pressure from the United States, Israel and Europe to crack down on terrorists in territory under Palestinian control since a string of December attacks killed 35 Israelis"
- Quoted from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/18/mideast/index.html

Is that not convincing enough for you Benz, that USA, Europe and Canada also (yes I also read about your wonderful country getting focused on arafat to start doing things instead of talking and talking and talking and talking...) are also focused at arafat and NOT sharon?

 

[Benz]

I agree and I have more on...

"Washington — Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened in the Middle East crisis on Tuesday, urging Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to crack down on militants and telling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be ready to respond.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Mr. Powell told Mr. Arafat in a telephone call that the United States welcomed his latest steps to crack down on extremists but needed to see more of them..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ve=RTGAM&site=Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews

The pressure is on BOTH!

I think I have a good idea of what goes wrong in the negociations.

To stop the war, are you ready to let Palestine has the full control of Jerusalem-East ? Arafat is ready to recognize Jerusalem-West as the capital of Israel if so.

Are you ready to let them have their capital into their own city of Jerusalem-East?

If the answer is NO. It is a matter of time before Arafat will lose completly the control of the situation and the Hamas will do more terrorist acts. Because I think it is the bottom line of the conflict and the reason of why he hadn't signed yet.

I am telling you this as I see it and I do not take a side on that specific issue.

 

[gjts00]

Originally posted by gjts00
1) What jurisdiction does the Belgian government have over the rest of the of the world? And by whom was this power granted & why (to Belgium)?

2) Does the UN recognize this jurisdiction?

3) How stern could the ramifications resulting from such a trial be, for a national leader? And if said leader decided to blow the court off, what forms of recourse would the court then have available to them, to enforce/uphold a conviction?

4) If Sharone (spelling?) is indeed guilty of the supposed allegations, shouldn't Arafatt (again spelling?) then be brought up on charges as well?


I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity, as what I don't know about international law could fill volumes. But, it seems ridiculous to me that Belgium, of all countries, would hold such a position on the world stage. As such a job would be better left to a more comprehensive body the likes of a multi national tribunal, or the UN (IMO). Although I've not a sh1t's worth of confidence in the latter.

I ask again...

 

[IceBlaZe]

Benz, how many times should we tell you:
Jerusalem is not an issue of the oslo agreements or the mitchel resloutions.
Jerusalem is understandabl by arafat, sharon, the USA and the UN to be discussed about only after the violence ends and their is a status quoe (spelling) for the palestinien territories to be retrieved. NOT before any of that happens! It has nothing to do with arafat starting the intifada! it has nothing to do with the hamas violence! I dont friggin know where you get your sources from but if you go and read the hamas political view it says 'Destruction of Israel', 'War against the zionist devil', 'jews to the sea', or anything like that over and over and over and has no relation to east jerusalem, ok?

 

[IceBlaZe]

"Washington — Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened in the Middle East crisis on Tuesday, urging Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to crack down on militants and telling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be ready to respond.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Mr. Powell told Mr. Arafat in a telephone call that the United States welcomed his latest steps to crack down on extremists but needed to see more of them..."

Benz, if from that quote you see pressure on sharon you need to learn some english, all it says is pressure on arafat, and then more pressure on arafat, and that sharon should be READY to respond when arafat takes the neccesary actions, it says nothing about something sharon should do now.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Just so you know, the hamas doesnt recognize the existence of israel, neither does Iraq or Iran or the islamic jihad or the fatah or the tanzim.
You can call thier actions 'Freedom Fighting' if they were to hurt only military targets and targets inside the palestinien territory and mass killing of citizens inside israel is in no way freedom fighting or legitimate!

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by gjts00

1) What jurisdiction does the Belgian government have over the rest of the of the world? And by whom was this power granted & why (to Belgium)?
2) Does the UN recognize this jurisdiction?
3) How stern could the ramifications resulting from such a trial be, for a national leader? And if said leader decided to blow the court off, what forms of recourse would the court then have available to them, to enforce/uphold a conviction?
4) If Sharone (spelling?) is indeed guilty of the supposed allegations, shouldn't Arafatt (again spelling?) then be brought up on charges as well?

I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity, as what I don't know about international law could fill volumes. But, it seems ridiculous to me that Belgium, of all countries, would hold such a position on the world stage. As such a job would be better left to a more comprehensive body the likes of a multi national tribunal, or the UN (IMO). Although I've not a sh1t's worth of confidence in the latter.
I ask again...

1) Belgium has no juridiction over the rest of the world.

2) Well I think the UN is not related to that.
It is just a matter of belgian law.

3) I guess that if Sharon is proven guilty in this trial, and if he goes to Belgium, then he may be arrested. But still, I think that as head of state, and therefore member of a diplomatic staff, he shouldn't have any problems. There's still the problem of extradition (i'm not sure that word is english). But anyway, why the hell would Sharon want to go to Belgium?

4) Any belgian citizen, or people living in Belgium, is entitled to sue Arafat.

Why does it seem ridiculous to you that belgium allows its citizens to bring to trial people who are suspected of crimes?

This is not a matter of international laws.

 

[G-Man]

"To stop the war, are you ready to let Palestine has the full control of Jerusalem-East ? Arafat is ready to recognize Jerusalem-West as the capital of Israel if so.

Are you ready to let them have their capital into their own city of Jerusalem-East?

If the answer is NO. "

Will the US convert all of it's citizens to muslims in order to stop the war in Afghanistan? No democracy will negotiate with terrorists and no democracy will give up to their demands. If we'll give the Hamas E.Jerusalem for a capital what makes you think they'll stop? Their roots are in the mujahidins, that attacked Israel before 67' and before we had any part of the Gaza or the west bank. They didn't fight the countries that had these areas then, they were there allies. Their war is against Israel, not against occupation or anything like that. When someone is willing to sacrifice his life in order to kill you you better stop him before he can. That was Arafat's job. He didn't do it, so Israel has to do it for him. This is what the intifada is about - Arafat's will to arrest terrorists.


"Yes they did. They also did ask Israel's leaders for years to leave Palestine alone. While the colonization were getting bigger every year. You have to look at both sides. "

Be more specific


"Washington — Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened in the Middle East crisis on Tuesday, urging Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to crack down on militants and telling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be ready to respond.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Mr. Powell told Mr. Arafat in a telephone call that the United States welcomed his latest steps to crack down on extremists but needed to see more of them..."

Sharon responded before Arafat did anything. He lifted closures and stopped targeted killings. Arafat was supposed to arresto terrorists, which he ofcourse didn't, and they got into Israel and commited three suicide bombings and planted a car bomb. If Arafat will actually do something Israel will responde.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by G-Man
Will the US convert all of it's citizens to muslims in order to stop the war in Afghanistan? No democracy will negotiate with terrorists and no democracy will give up to their demands. If we'll give the Hamas E.Jerusalem for a capital what makes you think they'll stop? Their roots are in the mujahidins, that attacked Israel before 67' and before we had any part of the Gaza or the west bank. They didn't fight the countries that had these areas then, they were there allies. Their war is against Israel, not against occupation or anything like that. When someone is willing to sacrifice his life in order to kill you you better stop him before he can. That was Arafat's job. He didn't do it, so Israel has to do it for him. This is what the intifada is about - Arafat's will to arrest terrorists.

Last time I saw such twisted logic I was reading last chapters of 1944 produced
Finnish history book.

You know darn well what is the difference between those 2 demands.

 

[G-Man]

A terrorist is a terrorist. I don't see what it has to do with your country's history.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by G-Man
A terrorist is a terrorist. I don't see what it has to do with your country's history.

Lets see this once again... YOU CLAIMED THAT PALESTINIANS WANTING
THEIR OWN LANDS WHICH YOU TOOK FROM THEM IS THE IDENTICAL
TO UBL'S TERRORIST ACTIONS?...


Jesus! That was what I ment with 'Twisted logics'

 

[IceBlaZe]

Juize, the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does not act because of Israels occupation, it acts to ELIMINATE ALL of Israel and the PUT AN END to Zionism (Just read one of their books of political views if you find any).
UBL act to ELIMINATE the western culture and to PUT AN END to free will and democracy. While there is a difference in the targets, there is NO difference between the terrorists.
You need to realize the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does not act because of Israel's troops essence in palestinien territories, it acts because of their GENERAL existence.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Juize, the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does not act because of Israels occupation, it acts to ELIMINATE ALL of Israel and the PUT AN END to Zionism (Just read one of their books of political views if you find any).
UBL act to ELIMINATE the western culture and to PUT AN END to free will and democracy. While there is a difference in the targets, there is NO difference between the terrorists.
You need to realize the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does not act because of Israel's troops essence in palestinien territories, it acts because of their GENERAL existence.

Yepyep. And IceBz, if you read the G-mans post 2 posts upwards, you notice,
that he uses this to say that they will NOT let palestinians into east-Yerusalem.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I dont get what you mean juize

 

[IceBlaZe]

"Committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war"
- Quoted from the US Navy profile of the PIJ (Palestinien Islamic Jihad)
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/pij.htm

"Various HAMAS elements have used both political and violent means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel."
-Quoted from the US Navy profile of the HAMAS
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/hamas.htm

From both of these decsriptions you can see that both of these terror organizations act with terror to destroy Israel and not to liberate the occupied territories. If you didnt get it in the HAMAS case, read between the lines:
'in place of israel', that means that the HAMAS acts to delete Israel and put palestine where it was.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Juize, the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does not act because of Israels occupation, it acts to ELIMINATE ALL of Israel and the PUT AN END to Zionism (Just read one of their books of political views if you find any).

That's why Israel should nevertheless negociate with Arafat, because he's maybe the only one that actually can counter or lessen the influence of hamas. If Arafat is totally discredited, the hamas might take over and it will be even worse than now.

Even if Arafat is a liar and whatever you want, he is much better than the hamas.
Israel weakens Arafat and kills hamas terrorists, which brings more terrorists to the hamas.

All of this sounds like a dead end street.

I guess that old ennemies cannot get along like that. Everybody is talking about Oslo ... I don't think that one single agreement will solve anything. There has to be many agrrements. If you talk to somebody, you're less willing to punch him...

There are two ways out of a conflict:
- one side is annihilated
- negociations

I say there has to be negociations.

 

[IceBlaZe]

"External Aid
Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria."
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/hizbalah.htm
- Quoted from the US Navy profile of the hizbullah.

so.. the hizbullah gets support from the Syrian government...
What, what did you say, syria are in the UN security council?
Do I sense a bit of hypocrism from the UN?
Nah, couldnt be, from their decisions you are all mad about Israel!
I think they are called 'UN Resolutions'...
Off Topic: The UN should resolve itself before it resolves us.

 

[IceBlaZe]

To Jacques:
Why should we discuss with arafat while he does nothing to stop the islamic jihad and the hamas?
In that case, isnt it better for Israel to discuss primarily with the hamas instead of discussing with a hypocrit like arafat that says one thing while doing another?
I dont know, but arafat is surely not helping to stop terror, and while Israel will not negotiate under terror I say its either time for arafat to do something REAL and not house arrests of religious leaders or its time for someone to take his place.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Just so you know:
We were never enemies of the palestiniens before they opened war at us!
So its not the reason we dont negotiate with them because they are our 'enemies', its because we dont want to negotiate with someone who does nothing to stop terror and we dont want to negotiate under terror.
Like USA wont negotiate with terrorists or the organizations that let them act freely (E.G: Not only al quaida, but the taliban too), so are we.
We dont want to talk with Arafat while hamas members act freely from his territory, and if he doesnt do anything to stop them, we should.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
To Jacques:
Why should we discuss with arafat while he does nothing to stop the islamic jihad and the hamas?
In that case, isnt it better for Israel to discuss primarily with the hamas instead of discussing with a hypocrit like arafat that says one thing while doing another?

Then fine! go ahead! hamas doesn't want to talk with israel since it wants to destroy it.
Kill all the hamas terrorists you want. It will never end.

Diplomacy is something difficult to master, but I'm sure there are people in Israel who are very good diplomats. Talking with somebody doesn't imply that you have to believe everything this person says.