The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

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?

It depends on the peace plan.  The one I've described above would not need UN peacekeepers.

[bn880 5]

What if someone starts making settlements during that plan, or if someone decides to drive 8 tanks into a city and demolish some houses, or an AH goes up in the air to fire rockets at cars, or someone with an explosive belt is on the prowl.

IMO, you need the UN to intervene with serious force in all occations.

[Bernadotte 0]

What if someone starts making settlements during that plan

I really don't see how Israeli citizens could cross an international border with bulldozers and cement trucks to build settlements on foreign land.  Israel built many settlements in the Sinai, but no more were built after the Camp David treaty returned it to Egypt.

...if someone decides to drive 8 tanks into a city and demolish some houses, or an AH goes up in the air to fire rockets at cars...

Why would Israel do such a thing if they are no longer threatened?

...or someone with an explosive belt is on the prowl.

Peacekeepers can't stop that.

[bn880 5]

Hehhe, well I'd like to see that.

[denoir 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.

Really? It sounds to me exactly like the suggestions that you torpedoed just a page back.

Quote[/b] ]Settlements

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

Quote[/b] ]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.

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.

What I meant is: Do you have a realistic suggestion, something that could actually be implemented today?

[ozanzac 0]

For as long as the Israelis use the theory of 'Attack is the best defence', and are allowed to freely use its military against non-military targets, then peace will never be established. An international peacekeeping force, preferably from neutral nations, is required to guard Israeli-Palestinian borders for at least a decade, so as to see that the Israeli government doesn't use its overkill tactics.

I'm not saying I support Palesinian terrorism, but the two parties will never ever find a solution if they are left to enforce negotiations themselves.

It's a much too complicated matter. As both sides are equally to blame as the other. Why do they pretend they want peace when they continually prevoke each other?

[Bernadotte 0]

Do you have a realistic suggestion, something that could actually be implemented today?

All aspects of the above peace plan are realistic and could be implemented today if the Israeli political will existed to do so.  However, for endorsing even a very small portion of this plan in the last election, the Israeli Labour party was rewarded with its worst election defeat in history.  In other words, the Israeli public has become too comfortable with the status quo.

How can this be changed?

Money!!  Let Israeli citizens pay for their own gunships, Merkava tanks and Hellfire missiles instead of the US taxpayer.  Let Israeli settlers build their illegal homes, roads and walls on Palestinian land with their own funds instead of aid money.  Let's see how much longer Sharon would stay in power if the cost of his conflict to the average Israeli household suddenly increases by $2,000 per year.

Did you know that every US president since Carter has branded Israeli settlement construction as illegal, yet only Carter and Bush Sr dared to reduce aid to Israel because of it?  And what was the outcome?  The Camp David treaty and the Oslo Accords, respectively.

Oh by the way, when was the last time a US president lost a re-election bid besides Bush Sr and Carter?  

Prediction:

The conflict will continue until the next US election.

If a democrat wins the conflict will continue.

If Bush Jr wins the conflict will end.

[bn880 5]

That's a pretty scary prediction. Anyway, let's wait and see, what else.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The proposed solutions are good guidelines, but what forces the two parties to stick to them? Has there ever been open trial for those soldiers having shot civillians/ journalists? Has Arafat ever openly proclaimed that he is disgusted by what his peasants do to the Israelis? And what about the terorists he shelters?

This is all just pretentious and there IS NO JUSTICE. Each of the both sides protects its own people, no matter whether they murderers, terorists or fanatics. And it appears that a "murderer from my side" is worth more than a "civillian from his side".

My solution is slightly more extravagant. I would use UN soldiers to enforce the Roadmap. And this with all brutality required.

Smoke the settlers out of their villages (they only chose this dry useless land to piss of palestinians), flatten their houses, and on the other hand take away the employment rights of all family members related to a suicide bomber. Fully controll Arafats daily communication with his ministers and introduce a trial for Isrealian war crimes.

Also, I would enforce mixed kindergardens/ schools/ universities/ hospitals and all those little tools that helped to bring down Apartheit. If something has to be changed in their minds then one generation has to be educated apart from their parents, whose heads are blocked with extremism.

[Bernadotte 0]

Here's an article for my and-just-when-you-thought-you'd-heard-it-all-file:  Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel

Quote[/b] ]Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

...

"The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said.

-- UPI

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hop back on that merry-go-round.

[Crazysheep 1]

Well, seeing as this topic is dying here is a viewpoint on events.

When the terrorist targets a western democratic institution, he doesn't do it to alleviate the oppression of some group, or to avenge a social injustice. The motive is power through the destruction of the institution and the killing of specific targets (for example, American civilians on 9/11). The objective of Hamas is not the liberation of Palestine; it is the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Islamic law. They can seem to overlap, but they are not equivalent things.

[Bernadotte 0]

The objective of Hamas is not the liberation of Palestine; it is the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Islamic law. They can seem to overlap, but they are not equivalent things.

Crazysheep, this doesn't sound like you.  Is this really your own personal opinion of what Hamas is saying or are you actually quoting Hamas?

Meanwhile, here is an actual statement made just a few months ago by a Hamas spokesperson:

Quote[/b] ]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

[Crazysheep 1]

Well, seeing as this topic is dying here is a viewpoint on events.

I know. I'm playing devils advocate.

Continuing that role:

Do you really believe that quote?

It's not as if Israel isn't willing to make painful concessions to the Palestinians. They've offered them to the Palestinians before, and are turned down each time. They have even made generous concetions to Egypt and Jordan. The later wouldn't be half as big as it is now otherwise. If Hamas really wanted only the west bank, they would have let it happen a long time ago.

I'm sure Arafat would love to sign those treaties. But, he knows that if he does Hamas would kill him. And if not them, then Islamic Jihad or someone else.

Hamas doesn't give a damn about the Palestinian people. They are really just a foreign funded organization (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and formerly Iraq) formed to brainwash Palestinian youth so that they can used as canon fodder in their struggle against Israel.

The reason for taking the word of known terrorists over that of a democractic nation is beyond me.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Hamas is composed of individuals and its perfectly possible that there are both individuals who want the complete destruction of Israel and those who are willing to settle for their own state existing side by side with Israel. I see it as quite probable that most Hamas members would rather Israel did not exist, what group after fighting a foe bloodily for so long would not wish so? Yet that does not mean many would not be willing to settle for something less (a Palestinean state respected by Israel) just as some Israelis (for instance some settlers) would like to see all the palestineans kicked out or bombed doesnt mean the majority cant be brought around to a position of compromise. Unfortunatly there are always likely to be individuals on the fringes with very extreme views especially in an area where so much blood has been spilt.

[Renagade 0]

.......

[brgnorway 0]

...well, this is certainly not going to improve the situation:

Quote[/b] ] Israel decides to expel Arafat

The Israeli cabinet has agreed in principle to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the region.

The decision was announced after a cabinet meeting convened to consider a response to suicide bombings that killed 15 people in Israel on Tuesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3098656.stm

[brgnorway 0]

More news on the situation.

Palestinians rally to support Arafat.

I have a feeling that the situation will explode (litteraly)if Israel exile Arafat. It sure as hell won't reduce the bombing of innocent Israelis.

[Bernadotte 0]

...well, this is certainly not going to improve the situation

Israel is bluffing.

This would be great for Arafat becase he would be free to travel the world and get lots of sympathy while continuing to pull the strings back home even more than now.  

This would be bad for the Palestinians because the anger caused by expelling Arafat would generate more terrorism and Israeli retaliation.

It would be even worse for Israel because of the above reasons and because it might dent the support they get from the US.

When Israeli PM Shamir expelled a bunch of Muslim clerics to southern Lebanon in ~1991 the US responded by delaying Israel's annual aid money.  Not cancelling.  Not reducing.  Just delaying by a few months.  This distressed the Israeli public so much that they soon threw Shamir out of office.  Sharon won't risk that while Israel's economy remains such a basket case.

So why would Israel bluff about expelling Arafat?

Because a growing segment of the Israeli public are getting tired of waiting for Sharon to reduce terrorism and improve the economy.  Now Sharon will be able to claim that it is the international community who is keeping things from getting better by preventing the removal of Arafat.

[brgnorway 0]

...well, this is certainly not going to improve the situation

Israel is bluffing.

This would be great for Arafat becase he would be free to travel the world and get lots of sympathy while continuing to pull the strings back home even more than now.  

This would be bad for the Palestinians because the anger caused by expelling Arafat would generate more terrorism and Israeli retaliation.

It would be even worse for Israel because of the above reasons and because it might dent the support they get from the US.

When Israeli PM Shamir expelled a bunch of Muslim clerics to southern Lebanon in ~1991 the US responded by delaying Israel's annual aid money.  Not cancelling.  Not reducing.  Just delaying by a few months.  This distressed the Israeli public so much that they soon threw Shamir out of office.  Sharon won't risk that while Israel's economy remains such a basket case.

So why would Israel bluff about expelling Arafat?

Because a growing segment of the Israeli public are getting tired of waiting for Sharon to reduce terrorism and improve the economy.  Now Sharon will be able to claim that it is the international community who is keeping things from getting better by preventing the removal of Arafat.

hm....yes, that's one of the best explanations I've heard so far! It could very well be - but I don't see bushywushy and his henchmen withdrawing any economic support from Israel whatsoever. It would be a bluff too I'm afraid.

[bn880 5]

Except Arafat may rather die than be expelled... I wonder if he's ready for death, if he is then he won't be bluffing.

[Bernadotte 0]

Except Arafat may rather die than be expelled...

Arafat has been quite ill for a while.  Getting in the way of an Israeli hellfire missile would be the greatest thing Arafat could ever do for his people.

Israel knows this, so it ain't gonna happen.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]Prediction:

The conflict will continue until the next US election.

If a democrat wins the conflict will continue.

If Bush Jr wins the conflict will end.

Bernadotte, im interested as to why you think a republican victory will bring peace rather than a democrat administration. The democrat Jewish vote? The need for democrats to be seen as supportive of Israel?

Surely Bush relies a lot on the votes of the fundamentalist christian right who would be dismayed to see Bush pushing Israel around or forcing compromise?

[Crazysheep 1]

Hamas is composed of individuals and its perfectly possible that there are both individuals who want the complete destruction of Israel and those who are willing to settle for their own state existing side by side with Israel. I see it as quite probable that most Hamas members would rather Israel did not exist, what group after fighting a foe bloodily for so long would not wish so? Yet that does not mean many would not be willing to settle for something less (a Palestinean state respected by Israel) just as some Israelis (for instance some settlers) would like to see all the palestineans kicked out or bombed doesnt mean the majority cant be brought around to a position of compromise. Unfortunatly there are always likely to be individuals on the fringes with very extreme views especially in an area where so much blood has been spilt.

No, they haven't given up on that aim, and it remains their principle reason for existing.

In practical terms, this is shown by the very fact that, whenever there has been a looming peace (narf) in which both governments seem to have accepted the importance of major concessions, Hamas and Hezbullah have attacked civilians and railroaded the plan. The representatives of the Palestinian people have never truly represented the needs of their people. One of the novel events of the process in recent months is that finally an American president declared the obvious, which is that Arafat is a croney for the religious extremist.

Also, it means didley-squat if some members of Hamas are more moderate than others. The actions speak for the themselves. The religious leadership makes the decision; the intermediaries formulate the plans and manufacture the arms and explosives; and the peons strap themselves up and kill women and children (and on occasion a few soldiers, but rarely).

Hamas, also, is a construct of foreign meddlers, like Cyco already intoned. It's a fabrication, birthed by outsiders, centered on foreign-taught religious clerics of the same ilk as Osama bin Laden and his mentors. The disgruntled outsiders have loved to carry the Palestinian as their mascot for justice, but it's a sick joke. The worst of it is that, over the past 30 years, they've garnered more popular support, by the same tactics that have transformed Pakistan and other places: feed the little children, in one hand food and medicine, in the other religious hate.

As for the foe... he's here to stay. Sixty years ago, the influx of Jews into Palestine could have been curbed, and Israel may never have become what it has become today. But that's no longer practical. The way one shows this sentiment is to negotiate, make concessions, and disarm extremists.

[SgtBarnes 0]

I've noticed Fox News now refer to the suicide bombings as 'homicide bombings'. Is this just for the higher sensationalism value?