WTF U.N.?

[davetlv]

Wasn't he appointed by YA himself (not the people), because Arafat thought that he will remain "obedient" and under his control? And that once it has shown that that Abbas has his own will, and it was then that YA's interferrence started.

Apponted after all parties involved in the region (quartet and other Arab countries) petitioned YA. The interference started immediatley when Abu Mazen could not appoint his own security advisor and could not wrestle the control of all security services away from YA - which i believe was one of the conditions of the road map. Abu Mazen also had a lot of support ont he street at the time, not that this particulaly help him.

If no one had any true power, they weren't really empowered, were they? :wink:

Fair point, but this was as empowered as the PA can get under its cirrent dictator.

This idea might seem a bit radical and drastical, but drastical situations call for dratic measures. IMO it could even be better if Israel would start negotiating peace with the direct leaders of terrorist organizations. YA has prooven that he doesn't have any control over their actions and thus cannot provide peace. Maybe offering them peace and amnesty for their actions would convince them to stop their attacks and maybe they would even overthrow YA. I know you have to be a (whole lot) "bigger man" to forgive and forget, but on the other hand a lot of Israeli and Palestinian lives could be saved. Well, this was just a thought...

Israel start negotiating with terrorists. Did you really say that! When every country on our planet refuses to negotiate with such scum, you want us to. Think about it for a second - South Korea, Turkey, The USA, Spain, The UK, Italy, France, Russia, Australia - and in excess of hundred plus other countries refuse to talk to such people, why should we be any different?

But, lets say for a moment, we do put out feelers to do such a thing. Who do you want us to talk to. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not recognise my countries right to exist, at all, and refuse to sit down and talk with us under any condition. So who do you suggest we talk to?

[brakada]

Israel start negotiating with terrorists. Did you really say that! When every country on our planet refuses to negotiate with such scum, you want us to. Think about it for a second - South Korea, Turkey, The USA, Spain, The UK, Italy, France, Russia, Australia - and in excess of hundred plus other countries refuse to talk to such people, why should we be any different?

Allow me to correct you there. UK talked peace out with IRA, didn't they? And IMO the Middle East conflict is "quite" similar to the situation in Northern Ireland, although in a far less civilised world.

But, lets say for a moment, we do put out feelers to do such a thing. Who do you want us to talk to. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not recognise my countries right to exist, at all, and refuse to sit down and talk with us under any condition. So who do you suggest we talk to?

I was afraid you were going to say something like that. :wink: Well, that makes the situation a whole lot tougher, but I think nothing is eternal, so I think that if Israel would be preapared to negotiate with terrorists, some sort of an ultimatum or something, I think their opinion could be changed. But first the stubborn Iraelis (I assume you are not one of them ) would stop colonizing the West Bank... Still, these are just a couple of thoughts of a hypothetical way out with a lot of ifs. :wink:

[davetlv]

Allow me to correct you there. UK talked peace out with IRA, didn't they? And IMO the Middle East conflict is "quite" similar to the situation in Northern Ireland, although in a far less civilised world.

Here's something for you, having lived in the UK for 34 I have no understanding about the conflict between unionists and republicans - therefore i can't comment on the similarities of the two conflicts; i will however go and do my research and get back to you.

I was afraid you were going to say something like that. :wink: Well, that makes the situation a whole lot tougher, but I think nothing is eternal, so I think that if Israel would be preapared to negotiate with terrorists, some sort of an ultimatum or something, I think their opinion could be changed. But first the stubborn Iraelis (I assume you are not one of them ) would stop colonizing the West Bank... Still, these are just a couple of thoughts of a hypothetical way out with a lot of ifs. :wink:

Lets reverse this; let the terrorists give up killing people, let them put down arms and come to the negotiating table. How does that sound? My country negotiated once with a terrorist, you might remember him, his name is Arafat and funnily he won the peace prize. You might also, once you do your research, realise that through out the so called peace full times all he did is build an infrastructure which led to murder.

I'll be the first one on MS2 that condems the illeagel settlements in the west bank and gaza strip, but wake up and smell the coffee matey, Hamas, Jihad and Al Aqsa (including its leader Mr Nobel Peace Prize himself) will be only happy when my country ceases to exist. The talk of getting 'jews out of occupied land' which comes from their mouths does not just mean the west bank and gaza, but the whole of Israel. The only way they will negotiate with us is when we are under their political and military control. Personally, i doubt whether that will ever happen, even i would enlist to ensure it doesn't.

What amazes me in these discussions, is that fact that its always expected that we do the right thing. Let the right thing come from them for a change.

And while we're at it, last month a rally was held by the peace movement here in tel aviv, 150,000 people demanding Israel pull out of gaza and begin negotiations with the PA (and yes i was one of them). Lets see similar rally's in Gaza demanding a peaceful return to negogtiations and peaceful co-existance, instead of the rallys demanding our erradication.

[cosmo]

What amazes me in these discussions, is that fact that its always expected that we do the right thing. Let the right thing come from them for a change.

Amen. Nice comments.

[Yao]

It may be quite hard to get one of both parties to admit that they're doing the wrong thing. Most people consider being the first to give in as being weak, and in a war, nobody wants to been seen as weak. That is next to committing suicide.

Although in my humble opinion it takes great courage to be the first to say you're wrong...

[brakada]

Lets reverse this; let the terrorists give up killing people, let them put down arms and come to the negotiating table. How does that sound?

To me, it sounds just fine, isn't that exactly what all civilised people want? :wink:

My country negotiated once with a terrorist, you might remember him, his name is Arafat and funnily he won the peace prize. You might also, once you do your research, realise that through out the so called peace full times all he did is build an infrastructure which led to murder.

And your country had once a president/prime minister, who really cared about peace, and was on the right way to achieve it, but he got murdered, by an Israeli... :? And IMO he was definitely the greatest chance for peace in the Middle East.

I'll be the first one on MS2 that condems the illeagel settlements in the west bank and gaza strip, but wake up and smell the coffee matey, Hamas, Jihad and Al Aqsa (including its leader Mr Nobel Peace Prize himself) will be only happy when my country ceases to exist. The talk of getting 'jews out of occupied land' which comes from their mouths does not just mean the west bank and gaza, but the whole of Israel. The only way they will negotiate with us is when we are under their political and military control. Personally, i doubt whether that will ever happen, even i would enlist to ensure it doesn't.

But I think they have realised by now, that the Israelis won't be that easily driven "into the sea" and the population would be a lot more satisfied when they would get their own state, thus support for terrorism would definitely drop.

What amazes me in these discussions, is that fact that its always expected that we do the right thing. Let the right thing come from them for a change.

Well, I think that Israel is a more civilised country. Correct me if I am wrong, though. :wink: People live in prosperity (if we don't count the security situation), they are educated and should appreciate peace more and thus make more of the right moves. IMO (again) there have been a couple of steps towards peace from BOTH sides (Israel ceased with their actions and the terrorists called some one-sided truces), it was just that the timing of both sides was never right (it was always only one side doing it at a time).

And while we're at it, last month a rally was held by the peace movement here in tel aviv, 150,000 people demanding Israel pull out of gaza and begin negotiations with the PA (and yes i was one of them). Lets see similar rally's in Gaza demanding a peaceful return to negogtiations and peaceful co-existance, instead of the rallys demanding our erradication.

I know that, you told me and I read about it in the newspaper. I already expressed my respect for you and others like you, but peace-activists on the other side have much worse conditions to be demanding peace (they could be a target to terrorists themselves). And after all, with the casulties ratio they have a lot more people which are pissed off and definitely more desperate.

[davetlv]

To me, it sounds just fine, isn't that exactly what all civilised people want? :wink:

It's not for me to say what civilised people want, let alone who is civilised!

And your country had once a president/prime minister, who really cared about peace, and was on the right way to achieve it, but he got murdered, by an Israeli... :? And IMO he was definitely the greatest chance for peace in the Middle East.

Yes and we're paying the price aren't we! However, one debate which has been making the rounds over the past few years is what would Rabin have done under these circumstances. Rabin, like Sharon, was a military man, and its speculated, because thats all we can do, that his response would have been harder on Arafat then that of Barak and Sharon put together!

But I think they have realised by now, that the Israelis won't be that easily driven "into the sea" and the population would be a lot more satisfied when they would get their own state, thus support for terrorism would definitely drop.

If only that were the case my friend. Although i would like to believe this, i'm just not sure!

Well, I think that Israel is a more civilised country. Correct me if I am wrong, though. :wink: People live in prosperity (if we don't count the security situation), they are educated and should appreciate peace more and thus make more of the right moves. IMO (again) there have been a couple of steps towards peace from BOTH sides (Israel ceased with their actions and the terrorists called some one-sided truces), it was just that the timing of both sides was never right (it was always only one side doing it at a time).

You can't seperate the security situation from basic economic proserity. Prior to this latest uprising the Israeli economy was on an roll, since then, unemployment has increased, international companies no longer invest, unemployment benefits for the needy have been cut back, far to many billions have been used to fight the mechanisms of terrorism then have been invested in the basic welfare of israeli citizens. The minimum wage has been frozen at around $4 ph, people living outside the central regions, like in the Negev or the Western Galillee, face severe and acute long term unemployment, whilst those families lucky enough to have an income at all have to suffice with half the average wage, usually bringing up 2 or 3 children on that amount.
But, as you have said before, desperate times call for desperate measures.

As for terrorists calling one sided truce . . . pray tell me where you got this great piece of misinformation from!

I know that, you told me and I read about it in the newspaper. I already expressed my respect for you and others like you, but peace-activists on the other side have much worse conditions to be demanding peace (they could be a target to terrorists themselves). And after all, with the casulties ratio they have a lot more people which are pissed off and definitely more desperate.

The current ratio of death lies somewhere in the region of 4:1 - a dispicable display from both sides. Even if it was 1:1 it would not make it right. The reason why you don't see peace demonstrations from the other side isn't because they are afraid of terrorist actions, its because their political and terrorist leaders don't believe in peace. When we went to the peace rally, the security was immense. Sharp shooters on the roofs, bag and body searches on entrance - security supplied not just by the state but by private companies. Supplied not just in fear of a terrorist attack from palestinians but also in fear of an attack from our own side, like the one that killed Rabin. But, even still, we went, we demonstrated and we will do it again, and again and again, until Sharon's government actually does something. Its called popular revolt. We are not revolting (well some are - but thats another story ) with weapons or bombs, but with our voices and our feet.

I advocate the withdrawal from the territories for a number of reasons;

1. Under international law we have no right to be there - had we annexed them then this would have been different, but we didn't so we should get out.

2. Under occupation our hands are tied as to the responses we can make with regards to the continuation of terrorism. I support the concept of the fence, but built along 1967 borders. I believe that should an independent Palestinian state be created, and then that state attacks us, which i'm afraid is inevitable, we will have more rights under international law to protect our citizens then we do now.

[brakada]

Yes and we're paying the price aren't we! However, one debate which has been making the rounds over the past few years is what would Rabin have done under these circumstances. Rabin, like Sharon, was a military man, and its speculated, because thats all we can do, that his response would have been harder on Arafat then that of Barak and Sharon put together!

Although he was a military man, he was not as hostile towards Palestinian as Sharon is. He respected the opponents and got a lot of respect in return, thus the current situtation would never get that bad if he remained alive (but that's just a guess).

If only that were the case my friend. Although i would like to believe this, i'm just not sure!

If that doesn't work, the only solution is wiping the Palestinians out. But we won't know until we don't try...

You can't seperate the security situation from basic economic proserity.

You misunderstood me a bit there. I was trying to say that people living in better conditions and are more educated should have higher values and appreciate peace more (thus they should be less attracted towards extremist ideas), than the illiterate people living in miserable conditions with nothing to loose (thus more open to radical extremist / terrorist ideas)

As for terrorists calling one sided truce . . . pray tell me where you got this great piece of misinformation from!

I heard it on the news and I think our news is not that biased, mostly on Reuters and European press agencies. However the truces lasted only a couple of days and fell apart because of continual Israeli military actions.

The current ratio of death lies somewhere in the region of 4:1 - a dispicable display from both sides. Even if it was 1:1 it would not make it right. The reason why you don't see peace demonstrations from the other side isn't because they are afraid of terrorist actions, its because their political and terrorist leaders don't believe in peace.

Well, I think there are a lot of people in "Palestine" / on the West Bank (still a small minority, but anyway) who support peace, but for the forementioned reasons the majority of poor uneducated people living in terrible conditions are much more likely inclined to radical extremist ideas, thus giving a lot more power to terrorists. My theory regarding the ratio of death is that people, directly involved (i.e. loosing their relatives, friends or property) are also more likely to give in to strong feelings and act irrational, thus a larger number of people is acting irrationally in Palestine. It's not right, but it's logical.

I advocate the withdrawal from the territories for a number of reasons;

If this was the case (Palestine an independent state on the West bank, and Israel not colonizing more territory), I wouldn't deny Israel's right to defend in any way. But until this is not the case, I am a bit sceptical, whether Israel's cause is fully justified.