The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

...the reason they say they are doing this is to to get all of israel back but wat do they say wen claiming responsibility

it was a revenge attack for killing a hamas member, then they briefly say we want all of israel

come on how do u expect israel to react now

Not all Hamas leaders want to destroy Israel.

The other day I listed 6 reasons to be optimistic.  I wanted to list a 7th reason but I was too lazy to look up one of my earlier posts.  Here it is:

Quote of the month:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Israel is too strong to defeat and the Palestinians have no choice but to live with the Jewish state in peace.  Let us be frank. We cannot destroy Israel. The practical solution is for us to have a state alongside Israel.

-- Senior Hamas leader Abu Shanab</span>

   

About Abu Shanab:

- most moderate of top 5 leaders in Hamas

- studied in US

- architect of recent ceasefire

My first reaction to Shanab's statement was, I wonder how long it will be before Hamas kills him for saying such a thing.

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>Question:  How do you think Israel responded to such a moderate statement?</span>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Isn't he the guy who got a rocketgram courtesy of an IDF attack chopper?

[Bernadotte 0]

@ Aug. 24 2003,09:14)]Isn't he the guy who got a rocketgram courtesy of an IDF attack chopper?

Why would Israel kill the only Hamas leader who dared to recognise Israel and sought to have Palestinians living in peace alongside Israel?

 

[bn880 5]

Because they want to make it clear only a massive external intervention can stop their terror of Palestinians?

[Die Alive 0]

Link removed due to explicit picture content

[bn880 5]

Israel crashes Hamas beach party

Ever seen any of us post nice big after 4 people are killed in an attack? Just saying, you could have been born in different shoes and who knows what could be happening to you then.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Link removed due to explicit picture content

Ever seen any of us post nice big      after 4 people are killed in an attack?  Just saying, you could have been born in different shoes and who knows what could be happening to you then.  

If I need a public comment on my moderating, I will make sure to ask you first.

[bn880 5]

If I need a public comment on my moderating, I will make sure to ask you first.

Nah I wasn't making a comment on moderating, I was trying to quote Die Alive, I fixed it.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

If I need a public comment on my moderating, I will make sure to ask you first.

Nah I wasn't making a comment on moderating, I was trying to quote Die Alive, I fixed it.

Fairy 'nuff My apologies

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Aug. 24 2003,09:14)]Isn't he the guy who got a rocketgram courtesy of an IDF attack chopper?

Why would Israel kill the only Hamas leader who dared to recognise Israel and sought to have Palestinians living in peace alongside Israel?

 

Hey, I never said they were smart or anything- I just remember a guy by the name of Shanab getting killed, that's all.

[Bernadotte 0]

@ Aug. 25 2003,02:47)]

@ Aug. 24 2003,09:14)]Isn't he the guy who got a rocketgram courtesy of an IDF attack chopper?

Why would Israel kill the only Hamas leader who dared to recognise Israel and sought to have Palestinians living in peace alongside Israel?

 

Hey, I never said they were smart or anything- I just remember a guy by the name of Shanab getting killed, that's all.

You can't deny that Israel is being very clever.  Afterall, those Hellfire missiles that killed Shanab are paid for with your tax dollars.

(...and God only knows how many US servicemen's lives in Iraq.)

[denoir 0]

...the reason they say they are doing this is to to get all of israel back but wat do they say wen claiming responsibility

it was a revenge attack for killing a hamas member, then they briefly say we want all of israel

come on how do u expect israel to react now

Not all Hamas leaders want to destroy Israel.

The other day I listed 6 reasons to be optimistic.  I wanted to list a 7th reason but I was too lazy to look up one of my earlier posts.  Here it is:

Quote of the month:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Israel is too strong to defeat and the Palestinians have no choice but to live with the Jewish state in peace.  Let us be frank. We cannot destroy Israel. The practical solution is for us to have a state alongside Israel.

-- Senior Hamas leader Abu Shanab</span>

   

About Abu Shanab:

- most moderate of top 5 leaders in Hamas

- studied in US

- architect of recent ceasefire

My first reaction to Shanab's statement was, I wonder how long it will be before Hamas kills him for saying such a thing.

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>Question:  How do you think Israel responded to such a moderate statement?</span>

I've been reading up a bit on Abu Shanab, and I can't believe that somebody who wanted to give the peace process a chance would want to kill him. If there was any chance of a reconciliation between Hamas and Israel, it was through Shanab.

Could it have been a mistake? An intelligence error that made them blow away the wrong person?

I don't see what Israel would have to gain by killing him. Ultimately it only leads to a more militant Hamas and more attacks on Israel. What possible motive could they have for sabotaging the peace process? As I see it Israel has most to gain by a peace settlement that would ultimately lead to the end of terrorist attacks on its citiznes and a normalization of relations with its neighbours.

I just don't get it...

[joltan 0]

I just don't get it...

Simple: the Sharon administration has no interest in furthering a peace. From their acts (building the 'wall' on palestinian soil, continuing the settlements, continued attacks with huge collateral damages) it is obvious that they might temporarily have to give in to international pressure, but are still ultimately aiming to conquer (and keep) all of the 'holy lands' - preferably without any palestinians.

[Bernadotte 0]

As I see it Israel has most to gain by a peace settlement that would ultimately lead to the end of terrorist attacks on its citiznes and a normalization of relations with its neighbours.

Consider what would happen if Israel really did allow the West Bank and Gaza strip to become a Palestinian state and if even a limited number of Palestinians were allowed to return to their homes in Israel:

1.  Nearly half a million Israeli settlers (now ~15% of the Israeli electorate) would need to be resettled into Israel or become citizens of Palestine.  Sharon's party would not likely win another election for several decades.

2.  The US would have no more reason to send Israel their beloved annual $3 billion aid package, putting a lot of US/Israeli defence contractor employees out of work.

3.  Terrorism would still occur from time to time the way it still continues today on a very low level in N. Ireland.

4.  A lot of militant Islamists would pull out of S. Lebanon, Syria and Egypt and finally turn all of there attention to the US presence in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

5.  The non-Jewish population of Israel is growing faster than the Jewish population.  Any return of Palestinians to Israel would further accelerate the process of it becoming a non-Jewish state.

In other words, the cost of saving a few hundred innocent Israeli lives each year is much too high for Sharon.  

[denoir 0]

The sad thing is that you're probably right. I think that a lot of the problems in the world would be more smoothly solved if our beloved politicians had scope of interest that streched further into the future then to the next election. Instead of a 5 year perspective, they should look at their actions in a 100+ year perspective.

Quote[/b] ]1. Nearly half a million Israeli settlers (now ~15% of the Israeli electorate) would need to be resettled into Israel or become citizens of Palestine. Sharon's party would not likely win another election for several decades.

The ultimate goal must be normalization of relations between Palestine and Israel. If mutual respect is built up, then living on one side of the border or the other should not make any difference.

etc etc. If you look at a larger time frame very few of those things that you listed should be a problem (well, perhaps the asymmetric population growth - but hey - that's life).

If I was living in Israel, I'd feel that more was at stake than a few hundred citizens getting killed. It's a question of the overall security in the country. Even if the total numbers are not overly dramatic, the country is in a permanent state of semi-war. It's not a way that I would want to live.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

what is the prefered color for a bomb-belt during this season?

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]1.  Nearly half a million Israeli settlers (now ~15% of the Israeli electorate) would need to be resettled into Israel or become citizens of Palestine.  Sharon's party would not likely win another election for several decades.

The ultimate goal must be normalization of relations between Palestine and Israel. If mutual respect is built up, then living on one side of the border or the other should not make any difference.

Ultimate goal for who?  Do you really think that the thousands of settlers living in Kiryat Arba settlement by Hebron want anything other than the complete deporta... uhh... transference of all Palestinians out of the West Bank.

If you look at a larger time frame very few of those things that you listed should be a problem...

The Saudi government (and others in the ME) relies very heavily on being able to point at the plight of the Palestinians to distract its own citizens from unrest and corruption at home.  It generally works very well and there is huge petro-wealth at stake.  This is not my theory, but I believe there is some truth to it and this is why my 4th point could remain a long term problem.

what is the prefered color for a bomb-belt during this season?

Umm... I give up.  What is the preferred colour for a bomb-belt this season?

[denoir 0]

Ultimate goal for who?

Man kind. Humans. The inhabitants of this planet. I think it is safe to put an axiom that is generally valid for human beings: Pleasure is preferable to pain. To achieve that one has to look globally and over a larger timeframe. And then the conclusion is peace is preferable to war.

The problem is that people focus on their pleasure right now, this instance which leads us to a dead end.

What's more important, say in a 100 year time frame: that a couple of thousand settlers are happy or that millions in the region live in peace? What will maximize the pleasure for as many people as possible?

As I said, the problem is that nobody cares about the long term effect of their actions. And IMO the root of almost every problem in the world are inflexible nation-states that don't consider what consequences their actions have outside their limited sphere of interest.

Edit: Bah, ignore the text above. I've had a very long day and my brain is off-line running on reserve "platitude" mode

[Cannon Fodder 0]

The problem is that people focus on their pleasure right now, this instance which leads us to a dead end.

How can we break free of this individualist black hole? We have a world, which for the most part, actually advocates apathy towards others in the never ending search for immediate pleasure.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Untill both sides do not start to eliminate the agressors within their own lines, untill then they havent shed enough blood! Maybe all it needs is a few more decades of destruction and tragedy!

[bn880 5]

It's not like that, the problem is created by external forces, I.E. the west. "We" are continually adding fuel to the fire, and certainly not sending the UN in for some insane reason.

[Bernadotte 0]

Albert, I really hope you are visiting this thread to discuss it and not just to make statements like "the problem will continue until it stops."

Untill both sides do not start to eliminate the agressors  within their own lines, untill then they havent shed enough blood! Maybe all it needs is a few more decades of destruction and tragedy!

Do you consider this Israeli attack the act of agressors?  If so, how do you propose they be eliminated if their orders come from the Israeli government and their weapons come from the US government?  

[denoir 0]

Bernadotte, I have a question for you. You obviously have an immense knowledge of the conflict and the motivation for both sides. So my question is:

What solution would you propose?

[Bernadotte 0]

What solution would you propose?

The 4 main issues are borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees.  I support the plan drafted by an Israeli peace movement called Gush-Shalom because it offers a formula that is acceptable to the majority of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Borders

The Green Line (the borders of the pre-1967 war) will be a border of peace between two free and sovereign states;  Israel and Palestine.

Settlements

All Israeli settlers in the now occupied territories will return to Israel.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem will be an open city, and will serve as capital to both states; East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel.

Refugees

Israel will acknowledge its share of responsibility for this tragedy and will accept, in principle, the right of return.  The refugees will be offered several possible venues of rehabilitation and compensation.  One of these venues, will allow a limited number of refugees, the right to return to the state of Israel, based on a formula that will maintain the Jewish majority in the state of Israel.

[bn880 5]

Bernadotte, do you think it would be of benefit to have the UN present in a significant strength to keep some order on both sides when a peace plan is actually implemented?