New un resolution

[miss_cleo 0]

helping the native americans would not be in the interest of the US govt. therefore they continue to be marginalized.

[ralphwiggum 6]

as far as i see, this current wave of violence started when Sharon visited Jerusalem.(Sept of 2000). Then Palestine ppls got angry and started things and it escalated, and now here.

Sharon should have thought twice about visiting. Although Arafat said he woudn't stop Sharon's visit, just what choice did Arafat have? If he refused, Sharon would have gone out and said "Arafat is dissing me, against our will for peace!"

If i remember correctly, there were less attacks from both sides during an administration that respected Oslo Accord. Ehud Barak managed to keep peace until Sharon visited Jerusalem, and during Benjamin Netanyahu's time, he had problems. B4 him was Peres(I think), which the time was better(IMO)

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 14 2002,11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I don't believe there is a Jewish consipracy that controls the press. There are however more rich Jews in the western world with lots of influence than there are rich Arabs.<span id='postcolor'>

Let's take a look. Other than the Wall Street Journal, which has stood at Israel's side almost 100% of the time in the last year plus, the following have been "overly" critical of Israel:

CNN

BBC

AP

Reuters

TIME

Newsweek

NY Times

Washington Post

Herald Tribune

The Guardian

Sorry, I'm limiting myself to those at the top of my head that have a major influence within their respective countries and internationally, as well as influencing the press world wide.

Take your ambulance incidents for example. This from an Associated Press article today:

<KOFFI ANAN:> "In fact, I have written to Prime Minister Sharon asking him to investigate some of the reports that I have received regarding the idea of targeting some people, such as health workers riding in ambulances, and ambulances being blocked from getting to wounded," he said.

Five Palestinian medics and doctors were killed last week by Israeli troops shooting at rescue vehicles, and Palestinian officials accused Israel of systematically targeting medical personnel. Israel countered that ambulances are frequently being used to ferry weapons and gunmen.

Notice something missing? Why isn't there an Israeli response? There were at the time yet over and over again the replies are missing, as if dismissed without relevance.

This is the kind of "journalism" we've been watching from here all this time.

[Longinius 1]

"Israel countered that ambulances are frequently being used to ferry weapons and gunmen."

Sounds like a response to me.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,10:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's take a look. Other than the Wall Street Journal, which has stood at Israel's side almost 100% of the time in the last year plus, the following have been "overly" critical of Israel:

CNN

BBC

AP

Reuters

TIME

Newsweek

NY Times

Washington Post

Herald Tribune

The Guardian<span id='postcolor'>

Avon, you are getting angry...cool down..among the list you have, it would be nice to see how many of them as how many Jewish descendents and how many Arabic descendents are in top rank.

and speaking of NYT, I know for sure that their foreign correspondent is Thomas Friedman, a Jewish.

EVERYONE should read his book, 'from Beirut to Jerusalem' and 'Lexus and Olive Tree'.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 14 2002,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as far as i see, this current wave of violence started when Sharon visited Jerusalem.(Sept of 2000). Then Palestine ppls got angry and started things and it escalated, and now here.

Sharon should have thought twice about visiting. Although Arafat said he woudn't stop Sharon's visit, just what choice did Arafat have? If he refused, Sharon would have gone out and said "Arafat is dissing me, against our will for peace!"

If i remember correctly, there were less attacks from both sides during an administration that respected Oslo Accord. Ehud Barak managed to keep peace until Sharon visited Jerusalem, and during Benjamin Netanyahu's time, he had problems. B4 him was Peres(I think), which the time was better(IMO)<span id='postcolor'>

PArdon me but Sharon lives in Jerusalem. So do I. So do hundred of thousands of other Jews. Before Sharon's visit to the "Temple Mount", Judaism's holiest site in control by the Moslem Wakf with Israels explicite approval, numerous Jeish Israeli politicians visited the same site. BTW, he did NOT enter either of the mosques there.

Next, the Palestinians didn't just get angry. They were whipped into a deliberate frenzy, with well coordinated rallies, sermons and TV and radio broadcasts that basically said that monkeys like us Jews must be eradicated down to the last one.

According to the CIA's admittance last year, Arafat had perpared this coordination in advance and simply used Sharon as the trigger.

And your memory is vague. Since Oslo, almost from day one, the number of terrorist incidents shot through the charts in comparison with any time before that. Busses were blowing up right, left, top, bottom and center in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. That's is precisely what turned the country against Rabin and especially against Peres and what put Netanyahu on top to Peres' great and well deserved disgrace.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't make peace with these people - period.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. I hope all israelis aren't as tunnel-sighted as you are.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, we can win. By being decisive.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, almost missed this. What do you think would be the 'decisive action' in this case, that could win you the war? I'm very curious to hear that.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PArdon me but Sharon lives in Jerusalem. So do I. So do hundred of thousands of other Jews. Before Sharon's visit to the "Temple Mount", Judaism's holiest site in control by the Moslem Wakf with Israels explicite approval, numerous Jeish Israeli politicians visited the same site. BTW, he did NOT enter either of the mosques there.

Next, the Palestinians didn't just get angry. They were whipped into a deliberate frenzy, with well coordinated rallies, sermons and TV and radio broadcasts that basically said that monkeys like us Jews must be eradicated down to the last one.

According to the CIA's admittance last year, Arafat had perpared this coordination in advance and simply used Sharon as the trigger.

And your memory is vague. Since Oslo, almost from day one, the number of terrorist incidents shot through the charts in comparison with any time before that. Busses were blowing up right, left, top, bottom and center in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. That's is precisely what turned the country against Rabin and especially against Peres and what put Netanyahu on top to Peres' great and well deserved disgrace.<span id='postcolor'>

well what differentiates Sharon from the rest? he's overly to the right wing. AFAIK many Palestinians didn't like him, and would rather talk with Bibi then Sharon.

boy, you are really against Oslo accord..and how about the fact that Bibi got kicked by Ehud Barak? Ehud was not so much follower of Oslo accord as Rabin or Peres, but he unseated Bibi Netanyahu. OF course Barak was unseated by Sharon, but current situation is nothing like what it was during Barak and Netanyahu's time.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 14 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't make peace with these people - period.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. I hope all israelis aren't as tunnel-sighted as you are.<span id='postcolor'>

No different than making peace with Germany in WWII. Sometimes the tunnel's on the other foot - er - shoe - er - path.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 14 2002,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, almost missed this. What do you think would be the 'decisive action' in this case, that could win you the war? I'm very curious to hear that.<span id='postcolor'>

Annihilating the PA and anyone with any sort of weapon, regain control of the West Bank, possibly pull out of all of Gaza (the latter is my personal opinion and does not go down well with others of similar opinions).

Enforce a limited population transfer of Arabs (and Israelis) in the West bank to a contiguous uninterrupted geographical area within the West Bank. Alternatively, swap the West Bank for the Jordan Valley but this is a major security problem.

Impose an autonomy once there develops a political arab leadership whose main proclamation has nothing to do with slaughtering the Jews.

That's a rough outline.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 14 2002,11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well what differentiates Sharon from the rest? he's overly to the right wing. AFAIK many Palestinians didn't like him, and would rather talk with Bibi then Sharon.

boy, you are really against Oslo accord..and how about the fact that Bibi got kicked by Ehud Barak? Ehud was not so much follower of Oslo accord as Rabin or Peres, but he unseated Bibi Netanyahu. OF course Barak was unseated by Sharon, but current situation is nothing like what it was during Barak and Netanyahu's time.<span id='postcolor'>

He's not overly right wing? How? By having Shimon Peres as his foreign minister and Binyamin Ben Eliezer as hsi defense minister, both of them from the dovish, Oslo loving, Labor Party?

We have to care who the Arabs like and don't like to decide which Jew can and cannot go on the Temple Mount in Jewish controlled Jerusalem in the 21st century? Really?

A history refresher: Netanyahu won against Peres because terror reached an all time him during Rabin's and then Peres' terms. Israel started waking up.

Next, Netanyahu didn't keep his word and entered, with Sharon as his jolly foreign minister, into the Wye agreements. Not only did Israel concede territory, they also gave the PA more weapons for absolutely nothing but promises in return. It was the right wing parties themselves that toppled Netanyahu and his Likud party.

The Likud had no one to really offer up against Barak. Barak was relatively young, charismatic, mysteriously supported by Clinton's own campaign managers and pals and promised pie in the sky. Like a puppet on strings, he played out the US president's and the State Department's fantasies of how to achieve peace in the ME. He offered to give away almost everything, including a piece of Israel's pre-1967 Negev.

The current war, The Oslo War as we "rightwing extremists" call it, began in Barak's term - not in Sharon's. This is what brought down Barak with a thump. He's viewed by almost everyone, except his tutor Shimon Peres and Peres' disciples such as Yossi Beilin, as a lunatic who will never achieve a respectable political position again.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,12:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

"Annihilating the PA and anyone with any sort of weapon, regain control of the West Bank, possibly pull out of all of Gaza (the latter is my personal opinion and does not go down well with others of similar opinions)."

You cannot annihilate everybody with weapons without killing all palestinians. Thus regaining control can be hard. This has been proven over and over again in Vietnam, Soviet Afganistan campaign, Chechnya... If the whole populus is hostile to you, you cannot pacify an area unless you kill them all.

"Enforce a limited population transfer of Arabs (and Israelis) in the West bank to a contiguous uninterrupted geographical area within the West Bank. "

This sounds like ethnic cleansing. Isn't that sort of bad?

"Impose an autonomy once there develops a political arab leadership whose main proclamation has nothing to do with slaughtering the Jews."

Like they are going to submit to your screening their political leadership? Which self-respecting people would submit to such thing?

Nope, it seems your only option is to make peace with them. However horrible that sounds.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 14 2002,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You cannot annihilate everybody with weapons without killing all palestinians. Thus regaining control can be hard.<span id='postcolor'>

If this were true you would be right. However,

1. There still aren't enough weapons to go around so that every man, woman and child carries a weapon.

2. It has been rumored that if you fight a war decisively and are winning, that sometimes loosers put down their weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This has been proven over and over again in Vietnam, Soviet Afganistan campaign, Chechnya...<span id='postcolor'>

Unlike Americans in Vietnam and Russians in Chechnya, this is our home. We live here.

There are plenty of other wars where there are clear winners and loosers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If the whole populus is hostile to you, you cannot pacify an area unless you kill them all.<span id='postcolor'>

That's an alternative. Another one is that hostility without weapons leads to a lowering of hostility over time. Another alternative is population transfers. You've strengthened my opinion for the latter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This sounds like ethnic cleansing. Isn't that sort of bad?<span id='postcolor'>

Funny how no one ever calls throwing Israelis out of their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza "ethnic cleansing".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like they are going to submit to your screening their political leadership? Which self-respecting people would submit to such thing?<span id='postcolor'>

The Germans did after WWII. It seems to have mostly worked. It's temporary in nature. The goal is to reach political but not military autonomy.

They can have their own flag, parliement, phone company, everything - except for weapons. Maybe police will be allowed small firearms but I don't trust them even for that anymore.

This is not a new idea. This is what Menachem Begin brought back with him in 1977. This is what Yitzak Shamir offered to the Palestinians in the 80's. This is what a beast named Yasser Arafat, first from Lebanon and then from Tunisia, threatened with death any local Arab politician who would voice support for such a plan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nope, it seems your only option is to make peace with them. However horrible that sounds.<span id='postcolor'>

It takes 2 to tango.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,15:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unlike Americans in Vietnam and Russians in Chechnya, this is our home. We live here.<span id='postcolor'>

Chechnya has been a part of Russia since Czarist times and there's a pretty sizable ethnic Russian population

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 14 2002,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look whose up for war crimes now for his policies of ethnic cleansing among other things. I would class seizing land illegally and forcing the occupants out to make room for your settlers in the same league as Slobodan.<span id='postcolor'>

I would hardly call being attacked ILLEGALLY (if there is such a thing) by Jordan, and pushing them clear back "seizing land illegally."

If they wanted to keep the land they shouldn't have attacked in the first place the fools.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Mar. 14 2002,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chechnya has been a part of  Russia since Czarist times and there's a pretty sizable ethnic Russian population<span id='postcolor'>

If that's so, then I retract my ignorant remarks. Sorry.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miss_Cleo @ Mar. 14 2002,09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you kinda did take their country away from them<span id='postcolor'>

No.....Jordan attacking and being slapped around and called Susan is what lost their home.

Don't forget Palestinians were under the yoke of Jordan for 15 years before Isreal came along.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would hardly call being attacked ILLEGALLY (if there is such a thing) by Jordan, and pushing them clear back "seizing land illegally."

If they wanted to keep the land they shouldn't have attacked in the first place the fools.<span id='postcolor'>

Some interesting notes about UN resolution 242 can be found here: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=10572

Indeed, before the outbreak of the 6 day war, the Israeli government specifically beseached Jordan's King Hussein not to join in the Pan-Arab mobilzation against Israel.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 14 2002,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"If a terrorist takes advantage of civilians, I have no problem with this. There's a war going on here and if I have to choose between them and me, it's them."

This means any IDF soldier on vacation is a legit target then? And if he is sitting on a bus with his family you can target them all? No, that is not right. You have to make your damndest to avoid civilian casualties, even if its the family of the intended target. Because if you don't, you can't really claim to be wrongly treated when your own civilians get killed.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats all well and good and a great ideological thought, but it has absolutely no basis in the real world. Such "care" would be impossible.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't forget Palestinians were under the yoke of Jordan for 15 years before Isreal came along.<span id='postcolor'>

19 years. 1948 through 1967.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miss_Cleo @ Mar. 14 2002,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">tell you what... we'll take the palestinians out.. then the UN will come over and say that the jews are all gonna hafta get lost cause were giving israel to the native americans or kosvars or kurds or aborigonies or somebody else that history gave the shit-end of the stick.. then we'll wait to see how long it takes for jews to start bombing shopping plazas and such<span id='postcolor'>

Thats a rather assinine thing to say. You make it sound like the Jews just grabbed the land and then started bombing. Clearly you need to do a little research or stop reading the Palestinian Daily.

If the Navahos started sending suicide bombers into Isreal, I say they would have the right to go in and open a can of whoopass.

You people make it sound so easy. Lets see you live in a country that has been underseige since its conception, and whos neighbors want you DESTROYED (ie WIPED OUT! for no other reason then that you are a Jewish state. I think you would see things a lot differently as well.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miss_Cleo @ Mar. 14 2002,10:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i also think that the US govt seems to think that it will benefit from a certain amount of tension in the region, tho they will never admit to that<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah we benefit from it a lot *rolls eyes*

[miss_cleo 0]

well there has to be a reason we seem to alwyas be playing both sides of the field

[Longinius 1]

"Thats all well and good and a great ideological thought, but it has absolutely no basis in the real world. Such "care" would be impossible."

So you mean that you do not have to take care when it comes to taking out a target? The ends justify the means?