Achieving Peace in the Middle East

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Sep 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ferelwookie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 4
    I just wonder whether or not americans will be willing to submit to roadblocks, searches, sanctioned racial profiling, and internal passports to travel.

    Many Arab-Americans already have been victims of "racial" profiling, because of 9-11. In the Detroit area, HUNDEREDS of Arab men were "voluntarily asked" to assist the FBI with questions regarding the attacks. NONE of the men interviewed (the vast majority were LEGAL American citizens who showed up thinking they were doing the right thing for THEIR country) are know to be in any way involved with any terrorist organizations.

    Living in the Detroit area (largest concentration of Arab-Americans in the country lives here) I have seen Arab men at the airport get "special" scrutinty. While on a bus-trip from Michigan back to New England, two months after 9-11 to visit my family, our bus driver literally said out loud "I don't trust that." When two Arab men boarded the bus with large suitcases.

    I DO understand that Arab men ARE the profile we SHOULD be looking for, but there's a fine line between safety and trampling on fellow American's rights solely because of their skin-complexion/ethnicity.
  2. SCOTSSITHLORD Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 2
    The onus on the peace process surely rests with Sharon's Israel not the palestinians. Sharon is the one responsible for cutting vital areas of the budget in order to fund continued settlements, an act which will inevitably make matters worse than they currently are, if that's possible.
    I don't have the figures before me, but it's a simple and undeniable fact that many, many more palestinians have died as a result of indiscriminate retribution from the IDF than have been murdered by the maniacs of Hamas, Islamic jihad, etc. State terrorism has always been more efficient than the desperate acts of the largely powerless palestinian community.
    One step toward peace in the middle east would be a display of moral courage on the part of the Israeli labour party, which should be utterly ashamed of itself for having ever collaborated with a war criminal like Sharon.
    I'm involved in a letter writing campaign supporting Israeli conscripts imprisoned for their refusal to serve in the occupied territories. It's these principled individuals and the peace now activists who are the key to peace in the middle east. Sharon's eye for an eye policy has proven to be an utter, blood soaked failure and I only hope that the Israeli voters realise this before it's too late.
  3. RockDragon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 2, 2002
    star 4
    The onus on the peace process surely rests with Sharon's Israel not the palestinians.

    Sure it does...... That is why Israel has continually made offers to the Palestinians and offered up much of their land to the Palestinians. No, if that fanatic Yasser Arafat would ever accept a deal and stop the homocide bombers, it might be a start towards peace. But there will never be peace in Israel as long as the Jews are there. As long as they are there, there will continue to be attacks against them.

    I don't have the figures before me, but it's a simple and undeniable fact that many, many more palestinians have died as a result of indiscriminate retribution from the IDF than have been murdered by the maniacs of Hamas, Islamic jihad, etc.

    That is true. But Israel is doing what they have to do. I don't remember the persons name who said this, but I remember the quote quite well, it was something like this by an Israeli.

    We can forgive you (the palestinians) for killing our children. But we can never forgive you for forcing us to kill your's.

    The Israelis are not bloodthirsty animals bent on stealing others land like many of the Palestinians are. They are just a people trying to keep the peace in their own country.

    One step toward peace in the middle east would be a display of moral courage on the part of the Israeli labour party, which should be utterly ashamed of itself for having ever collaborated with a war criminal like Sharon.

    Sharon is not a war criminal. He is defending his land and people.

    The middle east will eventually achieve peace, although not by Israeli, Palestinian, or even American effort.
  4. Jedi_Master201 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 5, 2001
    star 5
    I disagree with you there. I believe there will be peace, and very soon, believe it or not. And it will be America that brings it. (possibly with the help of the future Pope)


  5. Lordban Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2000
    star 5
    Rockdragon,

    "That is why Israel has continually made offers to the Palestinians and offered up much of their land to the Palestinians."

    => Do you know that the settling process of the autonomous territories still continues at a fast pace ? Do you remember that a few days ago, Sharon's government broke because he wants to lower the money spent on health care but not on settlement operations ?
    Sharon giveth with one hand, and with the other taketh away.

    "No, if that fanatic Yasser Arafat would ever accept a deal and stop the homocide bombers, it might be a start towards peace."

    => What could Arafat possibly do to stop homicide bombers right now ? His security forces have seen their infrastructure mostly savaged by the IDF ; his entire archives have been seized or destroyed a few months ago by Israël ; he's been severed from his people for several weeks in row on several occasions, little able to command them ; his own presidential compound has been destroyed ; Cheikh Yacine and the Hamas enjoy more support from the population than he does, especially because he's condemned the suicide attacks, seen by the Palestinians as a whole as the only means to hurt Israël back ?

    Arafat is in no position to accept deals, whether he wants it or not. He may be willing to comply or not be willing to comply with Sharon's repeated demands that he stops terrorism, it won't change things a bit, because Sharon has methodically destroyed whatever power Arafat had over the course of the past two years.
    So don't be so quick to brand Arafat as a fanatic who will never accept peace deals. There is a lot more to Arafat's unability to stop terrorism than mere bull-headedness.

    "But there will never be peace in Israel as long as the Jews are there. As long as they are there, there will continue to be attacks against them."

    => There could be peace, if a major threat was placed on both sides in the conflict, ie if even one strikes, the two shall suffer. It's one of the few ways out of the endless bloodshed, though it's not an agreeable one and a damaging one for the image of whoever would have the courage to enforce it (relax, that's never going to happen anyway ;) ).

    "That is true. But Israel is doing what they have to do. I don't remember the persons name who said this, but I remember the quote quite well, it was something like this by an Israeli.

    We can forgive you (the palestinians) for killing our children. But we can never forgive you for forcing us to kill your's."

    => Oh. And you really need to use a volley of rockets to kill a terrorist when you know where he lies sleeping. [face_plain]
    IDF do have shock troops which, with a little additionnal planning in cooperation with Mossad, could kill those terrorists without the nasty collateral damage high-powered explosives cause, and with only minimal risk for the troops' safety if the planning is done properly.

    "The Israelis are not bloodthirsty animals bent on stealing others land like many of the Palestinians are."

    => I, for one, would be most interested in incontrovertible proof that a strong minority at least (circa 15%) are but bloodthirsty animals bent on stealing others' land.

    "Sharon is not a war criminal."

    => Do the names Sabra and Chatila ring to your ears ?

    "The middle east will eventually achieve peace, although not by Israeli, Palestinian, or even American effort."

    => I'm quoting you from the same post there : "But there will never be peace in Israel as long as the Jews are there."
    Which leads me to ask : how do you believe the Middle East will eventually achieve peace, other than once it has drown into the fires of man-made oblivion ?
  6. ferelwookie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 4
    I disagree with you there. I believe there will be peace, and very soon, believe it or not. And it will be America that brings it. (possibly with the help of the future Pope)

    Huh? What say does a Catholic pope have in a conflict between Jews and Muslims? I think the Catholic church (in the U.S. AND worldwide) has enough internal problems to keep themselves busy for years to come. They turned a blind-eye to the Holocaust, why would you expect them to truly be "involved" in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict now? ?[face_plain]


  7. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Do you know that the settling process of the autonomous territories still continues at a fast pace ?

    And it's wrong. I wholly agree with you here.


    Do you remember that a few days ago, Sharon's government broke because he wants to lower the money spent on health care but not on settlement operations ?
    Sharon giveth with one hand, and with the other taketh away.


    Don't you understand that this is one of the best things that could've happened to Israel? With the breakup of Sharon's government, his power could be broken. If parliament votes no-confidence in him, then an election will be held, and he might be dumped for a more moderate leader. This isn't so bad, from a certain point of view ;).

    What could Arafat possibly do to stop homicide bombers right now ? His security forces have seen their infrastructure mostly savaged by the IDF ; his entire archives have been seized or destroyed a few months ago by Israël ; he's been severed from his people for several weeks in row on several occasions, little able to command them ; his own presidential compound has been destroyed ; Cheikh Yacine and the Hamas enjoy more support from the population than he does, especially because he's condemned the suicide attacks, seen by the Palestinians as a whole as the only means to hurt Israël back ?

    This is a difficult problem. I personally feel that Arafat has been neutralized as a leader, and should step down. The fault here is two-pronged: one, Israel has basically destroyed him as a leader by the above actions; two, the terrorists, by completely flouting any respect for any notion of palestinian government, have neutered Arafat just as effectively as Sharon and share the blame, IMHO, for his problems. They represent lawless resistance, why wouldn't they be supported? Unfortunately, lawless resistance will only lead down the path to all-out war. In such a contest, the palestinians would be at an extreme disadvantage. This is a situation to be avoided. It is time for a balanced international intervention, one that blames both sides and favors neither. Anything less will lead to more suffering.

    Arafat is in no position to accept deals, whether he wants it or not. He may be willing to comply or not be willing to comply with Sharon's repeated demands that he stops terrorism, it won't change things a bit, because Sharon has methodically destroyed whatever power Arafat had over the course of the past two years.

    Agreed in part. I don't think, however, that Arafat dislikes the bombings. He made statements against them only under intense US pressure, and even then, reluctantly. He was a terrorist most of his life; you don't stay on that path unless you are fully committed to the idea that it will work. He does have some blame here.


    So don't be so quick to brand Arafat as a fanatic who will never accept peace deals. There is a lot more to Arafat's unability to stop terrorism than mere bull-headedness.

    Yes, there is. It's called a sincere belief that terrorism will achieve his aims. Since the UN has systematically rewarded decades of palestinian terrorism with capitulation and appeasement, what possible incentive does he have to stop now?


    There could be peace, if a major threat was placed on both sides in the conflict, ie if even one strikes, the two shall suffer. It's one of the few ways out of the endless bloodshed, though it's not an agreeable one and a damaging one for the image of whoever would have the courage to enforce it (relax, that's never going to happen anyway ).

    Interesting idea. Could you elaborate?

    Oh. And you really need to use a volley of rockets to kill a terrorist when you know where he lies sleeping.

    That was a bit much. But really, can you honestly give the terrorists who specifically target civilians the moral high ground? That's just as invalid as the IDF's actions in that instance. Terrorist attacks against soldiers is one thing-specifically targeting non-combatants is something else entir
  8. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    The problem with demanding that Arafat goes is that whoever replaces him is likely to be more extreme not more moderate. No one is going to deny that Arafat is/was a terrorist (or freedom fighter depending on you perspective) but sadly those who would replace him are worse. As I posted a few days ago Hamas topped a recent opinion poll amongst the palestinians.
  9. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Man, it is a huge problem, isn't it, Darth Karrde?

    Peace,

    V-03
  10. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    DarthKarde, Yassir Arafat had Israeli athletes slaughtered at the 1972 Munich Olympics. He's no freedom fighter. He WAS a terrorist.

    Though, you're right. Unless a moderate academic like Edward Said is nominated, you can't imagine anyone more..."friendly" than Arafat taking over.

    E_S
  11. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    DarthKarrde, Yassir Arafat had Israeli athletes slaughtered at the 1972 Munich Olympics. He's no freedom fighter. He WAS a terrorist

    I never stated that Arafat was a freedom fighter just that some people view him as one.
  12. Darth_Dagsy Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2000
    star 6
    Here's a thought....Perhaps if there is an election in the Palestinian territories, and they vote Arafat out, and install a government that is comprised in a large part of people that support the terrorism (ie Hamas etc), then we have 2 issues in addition to the whole 'it'll only get worse scenario':

    1) Perhaps these terrorist groups would quickly need to become responsible for their actions....if their actions directly cause a bunch of Palestinians to die, they might learn that they cant continue with this. Additionally, right now, its Arafat that cops crap on the international stage, not them...they can keep doing things and not have to face the consequences. This will change.

    2) If these terrorist groups are elected into power, then perhaps that means the Palestinians on the whole want this conflict? No more excuses about how its hurting innocent Palestinians....it means that this is what they are choosing for themselves.

    Just a thought.
  13. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Arafat - Mumbling old man that doesn't know what the hell is going on around him.
  14. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Arafat - Mumbling old man that doesn't know what the hell is going on around him.

    What a sensible and mature contribution to the debate.
  15. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Of course. I don't like Arafat, he plays the victim despite all he's done. And europeans tend to feel pity for him. Sad.
  16. Lord_Darth_Bob Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2001
    star 4
    Isreal has no right to exist.

    For a longer rant on this, I recommend the following: Stardestroyer.net's Middle East Rant

    Immigrants in Palestine had been conducting a gurrilla war against the Arab inhabitants since 1946 when the U.N. legitimized their illegal gains.

    The Jews accounted for a minority of the population and owned less then 10% of the property, but the U.N. ceeded them 55% of the territory.

    Now when the Jews had been fighting a guerrilla war for two years already and the U.N. legitimizes their territorial gains by military conquest, who is suprised that the Arab nations took offense and launched a counter-offensive? Not me.

    This is 1948. There isn't a massive anti-West complex associated with resurgent Muslim fanaticism in the Middle East. They took exception to the Jewish manipulation of world opinion and got the United Nations to recongnize their territorial conquests, something the U.N. was formed to prevent.

    Then they use "Arab aggression" as an excuse to occupy Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian land (1967, Six Day War). Their excuse is security. Since when does defending your nation (which consists of illegal territorial gains to boot) involve the invasion and occupation and annexation of foriegn territory?

    "Arab Aggression" used as excuse in 1973 Yom Kippur War. Doesn't everyone realize that they were trying to retake the land that had been illegally siezed and annexed by Isreal?

    There shouldn't be a mystery as to why the U.N. has passed so many resolutions against Isreal. They're defined as a racist and religious discriminatory nation. That's the whole idea of Isreal. Always bad qualifications.

    The Biblical justifications are crap as well. No excuse for having a country. Not to mention the Isrealites got Isreal by exterminating the peoples already there. And the Old Testiment brags about it. Read for yourself.

    Sharon is a mass-murderer. He's committed war atrocities and should be tried by the Internation Court.

    Arafat is a terrorist leader. Period

    They're undeserving of U.S. support and that just causes my country too many problems.

    Really, there needs to be a real Arab/Jew democracy in Palestine, with equal rights for both parties and an end to religious/racial descrimination.

    But I can't see how anything but murder will continue in the Middle East. :(





  17. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    I don't feel pity for him but I understand that very few of his likely replacements would be an improvement. I also find that to insult someone over their ailments is a pretty poor way of debating an issue.
  18. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Isreal has no right to exist.

    I couldn't disagree more. The original inhabitants of the land weren't jews or arabs, but the jews were certainly there before Islam even existed, and now have a say in what happens to that land for the first time in millenia. Debating this point is moot and useless. Israel is going nowhere, and frankly, I'm bothered a lot less by its existence than any arab nation in the middle east. If peace occured tomorrow and everyone made up and decided to be friends, then Israel would go back to being a democracy, and all the arabs nations would continue vying for dominance, abusing their citizens, and arguing over how to best try and rule the world by controlling oil prices.



    Immigrants in Palestine had been conducting a gurrilla war against the Arab inhabitants since 1946 when the U.N. legitimized their illegal gains.

    Palestinian terrorists had hijacked dozens of airliners, bombed, shot and murdered numerous Israelis, and assasinated the entire Israeli olympic athletic team in munich, on arafat's orders, in 1972 when the UN decided to grant the PLO, a terrorist organization, "observer status"-thus legitimizing terrorism as a viable means for achieving political aims.

    The Jews accounted for a minority of the population and owned less then 10% of the property, but the U.N. ceeded them 55% of the territory.

    *sigh* It all comes down to jews, doesn't it. What, pray tell, do you think of the fact that the native americans owned 100% of the US before european colonists got here, and were kicked off about 99.5% of it? What is so special about the arab/Israeli land disputes, other than it involves "jews"?

    Now when the Jews had been fighting a guerrilla war for two years already and the U.N. legitimizes their territorial gains by military conquest, who is suprised that the Arab nations took offense and launched a counter-offensive? Not me.

    Um, the UN was trying to function as it was supposed to function and find a place for millions of european jews displaced from their homes following world war II. Perhaps if they had been allowed to return to their places of origin, this wouldn't have happened. But anti-semitism, hidden under a view of post-WWII political correctness, coupled with the fact that the soviets now controlled half of europe, led to a massive refugee crisis. The UN plan to create two states-Israel and palestine-was not railroaded through, but presented to both sides and voted on. The plan included sharing jerusalem. The jews agreed-the arabs started fighting, vowing to kill every jew they could. I don't give this one to the arabs at all.

    This is 1948. There isn't a massive anti-West complex associated with resurgent Muslim fanaticism in the Middle East. They took exception to the Jewish manipulation of world opinion and got the United Nations to recongnize their territorial conquests, something the U.N. was formed to prevent.

    Your opinion. Actually, the UN was formed to solve disputes, in part.

    Then they use "Arab aggression" as an excuse to occupy Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian land (1967, Six Day War). Their excuse is security.

    Where do you get your history? Israel was attacked in that war, unprovoked (and don't tell me it's existence was 'provocation'-none of the nations doing the attacking were interested in living in Israel or controlling it, just killing jews), and the countries involved were turned on their ears when they lost, and as a result, ended up losing terrority to a buffer zone of security around Israel. Who would blame them? You, evidently....not me.

    You know, when you start a war, if you LOSE, you might have to give up terrority.


    Since when does defending your nation (which consists of illegal territorial gains to boot) involve the invasion and occupation and annexation of foriegn territory?

    Since when does defending your nation mean sitting idly by when attacked? Israel launched a counter-attack and won. Perhaps those arab countries sho
  19. Lordban Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2000
    star 5
    V-03,

    "Since the UN has systematically rewarded decades of palestinian terrorism with capitulation and appeasement, what possible incentive does he have to stop now ?"

    => Let's not forget the UN took their land from them in the first place.

    "PPOR. Where did you come up with that information? Are you a military strategist, or have you suddenly discovered some easy way to root out terrorists who hide amongst civilian populations and use them as human shields? The above statement is patently false. There might be a better way, but there is no "cakewalk" way, as you seem to think."

    => I'm in no way saying there's a "cakewalk way", not at all.
    I'm no military expert, but I do know some people who are quite knowledgeable on that field, with whom I had quite lengthy talks on what the difficulties are when investigating a building on unfriendly grounds, with hostages or potential hostages inside the building. One of them in particular has received thorough training on the matter as he's been commanding soldiers trained to do just that in several simulation sessions, and had a direct proof that with proper planning of the attacks he had to lead, it was not merely a possibility to kill a hostile target and its defenders with no casualties and no civilian casualties, it may be expected from trained men under competent leadership and with efficient scouting/intel gathering.

    "...the PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the camp david negotiations by request of President Yasser Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Sharon's visit to the temple mount. The Intifada was no surprise for the palestinian leadership...the PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada..."

    => That was some data I didn't have before, and I do thank you for bringing it to my attention, it does change my view on the matter. However, I don't believe that the Hamas and PLF suicide attacks, nor the later Al-Aqsa Martyrs ones, were part of the initial plan. The image of teens throwing stones at tanks would have, if it had stood alone for quite some time, brought momentum to Arafat's cause, but the action of suicide bombers could only be damaging. That's a lesson Arafat has learnt, and one of the reasons why he settled for negociations with Rabin instead of a war to take back Palestine in the 1990s, as well as one of the reasons why he earned a Nobel Prize for Peace.

    "How come no-one has ever called for his resignation? Why is the world so sympathetic to a man who has been a terrorist all his life? Is he anything less than a dictator?"

    => A lot of people have now called for Arafat's resignation, you know that as well as I do ;)
    However, though Arafat has long been a terrorist, what he did achieve was to cease using terror for a very long period, and to negociate with people he once sworn to kill and never to negociate with.
    I do think today's Arafat did make a big mistake by setting up a new Aqsa Intifadeh. I don't think he expected the Intifadeh would gain such momentum and turn into such a bloodbath. He did talk a lot about martyrdom, but I think he didn't want the martyrs to blow themselves up along with others.
    Arafat could not rein the current Intifadeh, and its direction no longer rests in his hands. He's been overtaken by the Hamas on his right wing, by Sharon's election on his left wing, he can't retreat without permanently destroying his popularity on the Palestinian side of the fence, and in front of him are the tanks and suicide bombers who diminish his grasp on power day after day.
    Arafat no longer can be a dictator. With each passing day he's closer to being a political non-entity. Yes, I do think his removal would serve now, though I was opposed to it a few months ago. His removal would serve, because so long as he's there, gazes will still focus on an old man little able to change things and pretty
  20. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5

    Let's not forget the UN took their land from them in the first place.

    To many, the creation of Israel was a great injustice. To others, it was the reversal of a great injustice. This is matter of perspective. I don't think squatter's rights count here.

    Way, way back in the other thread, I had originally posted this argument:

    Imagine the nazis had won world war II. Forget the jews, they're all dead. Instead, the germans remove all the frenchman from france, and resettle the area with germans. The french end up in siberia alongside the russians. They become a persecuted minority, have been forcibly moved to land that belonged to someone else.

    1,000 years later, the Reich falls, and freedom again returns to eurasia. All of a sudden, the french 'nation', which has existed in name only for 40 or so generations, demands the right to return to their homeland. However, the germans living there now consider the area their 'home'. A UN mandate (suspend disbelief here guys ) splits the region in half and allows the french to return. Thousands of germans are now under french rule.

    The french set up a state and call it 'france'. The germans living there begin attacks, and nation of germany aids them, starting another war. The US comes to france's aid, and the war ends with french victory. Several times over the next decade and a half, germany and it's allies attack again, trying to drive the french out of what they once considered their homes.

    "Foul!" cry the germans, "The land is not yours, and never was, because no-one is left alive from the time that it was, and it was so far in the distant past as to have no meaning at all."

    "Wrong!" cry the French, "This was our land before it was yours, and we are simply returning to it! The fact that you are the most recent tenants does not alter that fact, for you should not have been there in the first place! To hell with you! Go live somewhere else, you are surrounded by those who share your religion and culture, us only by those who wish our destruction!"

    Factions of the germans then radicalize, and begin terrorist attacks. The US, allies of the french against the germans, militarily build up the french and attempt to install a democracy.

    Both sides fight nonstop with vigor; the french using military equipment, the once mighty germans left in their part of what was once france using terrorism.

    The conflict drags on without end....





    I'm in no way saying there's a "cakewalk way", not at all.
    I'm no military expert, but I do know some people who are quite knowledgeable on that field, with whom I had quite lengthy talks on what the difficulties are when investigating a building on unfriendly grounds, with hostages or potential hostages inside the building. One of them in particular has received thorough training on the matter as he's been commanding soldiers trained to do just that in several simulation sessions, and had a direct proof that with proper planning of the attacks he had to lead, it was not merely a possibility to kill a hostile target and its defenders with no casualties and no civilian casualties, it may be expected from trained men under competent leadership and with efficient scouting/intel gathering.


    Funny, I know similarly trained people. Planning is all well and good, and I don't disagree with you that Sharon has done some nasty things, as has the IDF, but the terrorists do hide amongst civilian populations and the best laid plans do go wrong. I think that if a group is going to attack civilians indiscriminately, then they should be prepared for civilian casualties in the response. Not on purpose, obviously, but it's going to happen. There is no easy way to respond to this kind of terrorism; I don't think the IDF is purposefully targeting civilians. I think civilians get in the way, either accident or because they put themselves there, and of course they get all the media attention compared to the victims of the suicide attacks. It's a crappy situation.



    That was some data I d
  21. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    I do think today's Arafat did make a big mistake by setting up a new Aqsa Intifadeh. I don't think he expected the Intifadeh would gain such momentum and turn into such a bloodbath. He did talk a lot about martyrdom, but I think he didn't want the martyrs to blow themselves up along with others.

    I have held the view for some time that Arafat delibrately started the intifada but had no intention of letting things get to the state they are now. I suspect that he wanted civil disorder from ordinary palestinians similar to the 1987 intifada which was a decisive factor in bringing about the peace process, he probably thought that this would give him a more powerful negotiating position as most Israelis are critical of their government being over agressive when the trouble is only in the occupied teritories. They only demand action when trouble crosses into Israel proper. Unfortunately for everyone in the region who believed in peace Arafat miscalculated, Hamas and Islamic Jihad who had little support while the peace process seemed to be moving forward took their oppurtunity and the rest as they say is history.
  22. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Vaderize_03:

    You're pretty accurate there. And quite frankly, a Jewish state in that area was needed, particularly since the mufti of Jerusalem back then was pals with a guy named Adolf Hitler.

    That may have had a part in the whole matter as well. It was partially a matter of protecting Jews in the region from someone who was probably hostile to them, and it was, in a small way, a way of getting at the mufti for backing Hitler.

    DarthKarde:

    If what you say is correct, it will lighten the burden on Arafat, but not by much. That makes the deaths in this intifada, which HE started, negligent homicide at best.
  23. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    I think Jesse Ventura, GOvernor of Minnesota said it best once. There will never be peace in the Middle East. The religious roots of the people involved go too deep to ever be able to be changed.

    He was blunt and straight to the point....and right. There never will be peace there unless one side complete kicks out the other.
  24. CUBIE_HOLE Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 15, 2001
    star 4
    Jesse Ventura is right. One side is going to have to kick out the other.

    People can argue over it, but Arab countries basically have power for one reason: oil. I wonder, if this power of oil was nonexistent, would world views for Israel change. I think they would.

    Regardless, one day, the oil from the Middle East is going to run dry, and I think a lot of Arab countries are going to find out how many supporters and friends they have in the international world.
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    FIrstly, arguing Israel has no right to exist has been the cause of the Palestinian side of the conflict. BOTH sides have a right to exist and BOTH sides need to recognise that.

    Vaderize-03 is right about two things -
    One: this isn't about Jews. it's about Israelis. Let's try and keep latent anti-semitism under wraps, ok?
    Two: The UN, in granting the PLO observer status, did legitimise terrorism. Let's not forget the origins of the PLO here; the 1964 world Arab summit where it was declared an umbrella organisation systematically devoted to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel. Futhermore, the arms of the PLO like Arafat's al-Fatah and Force 17 were terrorist groups. An offshoot of al-Fatah was Black September, who slaughtered 12 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, which, among other things, lead to the creation of GSG-9. When Arafat became a largely political figure, he handed control of some elements of Force 17 to Iran's Pasdaran, who then were involved terror campaigns against Americans in Beirut.

    I am both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, and by the same token, anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. If peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be achieved it would be a blow in favour of modernity which is taking over the Middle East anyways.


    E_S
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.