With the Iraqi war going on we must not forget another conflict in the area

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Guardian
A bomb, which may have been planted by Jewish extremists, exploded in a West Bank school playground yesterday, injuring 20 Palestinian children.

---

That's pretty lousy. I'm sure there's a slant to that report, but even if it was like one kid or there were a bunch of Palestinian thugs hiding out with the kids, that's still pretty bad.

I like to push the envelope when it comes to rude/insensitive things to say about stuff like this, so I was going to say something like, "Good, the last thing this planet needs is children," but that's probably a bit much. :o

Oh well. Maybe another day, some less revolting news will come out and I can say something mean.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
I don't want to add more fuel to fire, but I found this appalling:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...933488,00.html

SC

---

It's definitely appalling - this is the sort of sad stuff that is inflicted on the Israelis on a fairly regular basis. Absolutely no excuse for it, though, of course.

And its the reality the Palestines live under.
ALL OF THEM ALL OF THE TIME.
You have institutionalised torture of people who arent even susopected of annything, extrajudicial killings, terrorism by settlers and the simple fact that far more palestines get killed by israeli´s then vice versa(so much so that people on this verry board attacked me and my sources(israeli government and a jewish newspaper) when I reported on casualties.
Becouse hey thats not what THEY see on the news.

Stone its appaling on both sides yet you turn it around and try to get another Israeli simpathy vote out of it yet when I show factual numbers im spreading propaganda and hatred.

Shall we dig up the reports about the deaths on either side during the Iraqi conflict when western sources didnt feel the need to report on the Israeli/palestine conflict?

Obviously, suicide bombing and terrorism is not working for the Palestinians, because now there are Israeli terror groups who are retaliating.

And Israel's tactics, such that they are, are not working either, because innocent Israelis keep getting blown up.

Why dont the Palestinians try some sort of peaceful resistance movement? I mean, it worked for Gandhi. It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. Im confident that, given enough time and PROPER nonviolent resistance could make far more progress for the Palestinians than getting people to strap bombs on their person, walk into a bus filled with women and children, and blowing themselves up. Becuase that is CLEARLY going nowhere.

I dont know if its because of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, Muslim tradition (that you fight for stuff like this), but their methods are clearly not working one bit and I think its time Palestinians take a serious look at what they are doing and try to revise their thought and try something new.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
Why dont the Palestinians try some sort of peaceful resistance movement? I mean, it worked for Gandhi. It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. Im confident that, given enough time and PROPER nonviolent resistance could make far more progress for the Palestinians than getting people to strap bombs on their person, walk into a bus filled with women and children, and blowing themselves up. Becuase that is CLEARLY going nowhere.

---

Good call. But both Gandhi and King had to die before they saw the fruits of their work. However, I doubt anyone will miss Arafat. :lol:
I think along with a non-violent protest, they need to do something like a huge PR campaign to show their plight to the whole world and counteract what Israel and the U.S. are saying about them. Anyways, I like the idea, but is it even possible given that the animosity and scars run so deep?

SC

What sort of plight do you think they'd be in if they didn't attack in '48, '67, or even if they just accepted Barak's offer in 2000?

Urmm Palestines carried out those attacks and started those wars?
And can you give us any details about Barak´s GENEROUS offer?

This seems like a pretty good summation of Barak's offer to Arafat in 2000, at Camp David. For everyone else reading this - this is far more than any other Israeli PM has ever offered, and Barak probably would've been voted out of office simply for giving away too much, even if it had worked. Clinton begged Arafat to accept the deal.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501 is interesting.
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep00/dan2.htm

The relative importance of Jerusalem to Jews, Christians, and Muslims is debatable, but remember which city holds a central position in each faith - Jerusalem, Mecca, or something else?

Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:

The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:

Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem

Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.

Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.

The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.

4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.

Some of the common problems with the agreement were that:

1. only proposed to relinquish control over between 77.5-81 percent of the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem, which most likely included Israel's retaining of the Jordan Valley.

2. wanted sovereignty over one-third of occupied East Jerusalem and all of West Jerusalem.

3. wanted control of the third holiest site in Islam, al-Haram al-Sharif (which Israel refers to as the 'Temple Mount'), where "Israel, incredibly, also demanded Palestinian agreement to the construction of a synagogue.

As far as the 1.) and 2.) go - I can't really say what's fair and what isn't fair as far as the division of East Jerusalem, all that goes. However, Israel offered to give up land conquered in a defensive action purely for the sake of peace

With 3.) - the "Temple Mount"/Haram is a place in Israel where it is believed both the first and second Temples used to exist. Judaism used to be a religion with ONE SYNAGOGUE, basically one Church - the "Temple" was all we had. All location based worship was based around the Temple. When the First Temple was destroyed by some Roman (I think it was a Roman), Judaism basically lost its foundations. A Roman let the Jews build a Second Temple, which was then later destroyed. Losing the temple was what forced us to start using synagogues and things like that. Anyways, if "al-Haram al-Sharif" is the third holiest site in Islam, then it's also the site of the FIRST AND SECOND holiest sites of Judaism. Israel wanted to build a temple there in order to create a real THIRD temple.

This is hard to understand, and I don't really understand it, but it's deeply deeply important to a lot of jews. There is no more important location based issue in Judaism than this issue of the Temple Mount. Arafat denies the Temple Mount exists., from what I understand.

A settlement aspect would have been maintained in the land. Israel would have slowly pulled out of some settlements, and one village was going to stay somewhere around the Palestinian area. However, remember - these settlements are basically seen as defensive outposts. Given the history of the Palestinians (or the Arabs they're allied with) attacking Israel, doesn't it make sense that Israel hedge its bets a bit by slowly pulling out of its defensive positions? The slowed evacuation in some areas and the one settlement were an investment Palestine could've made in peace, in rebuilding the trust lost over 50 years of offensive actions - and they weren't willing to do that. I don't think Arafat ever will be, and I don't know if Palestine ever will be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Yeah, I mean, the Azerbaijanis had the gall to fight against the Turks for their independence, and they lost. So the Turks just rounded a bunch of them up and slaughtered them. But it was their own fault because they lost the war, right? Stupid Azerbaijanis.

Or those stupid Kurds. They stupidly got themselves divided into several countries by a couple arbitrary British declarations. How idiotic of them. The Turks and the Iraqis had every right to murder and persecute them.

And how about those moronic Chechens, getting themselves landlocked inside Russia of all places? I can hardly blame the Russians for carpet bombing their neighborhoods.

And don't get me started about those animist Christians stuck in Sudan. They're the minority, so I guess the Muslims had every right to sell them as slaves. Stupid fuckers.

East Timorese, Muslims in Kashmir...fuck all those loser minority groups who can't win their own wars. They don't deserve human rights.

---

It's not an issue of human rights, though, it's about demanding back what you lost in an honest military action. Israel was attacked by Palestine and the entire Arab world, twice, and those land losses came as a result of those actions. Look - read what I've put above about the 2000 Accord. I think that in that situation, given the history of the Palestinians, the history of attacks on Israel, that it makes more than enough sense for Palestine to take its 91% land and try to build a nation.

No ownership of their own friggen water, no airspace rights, no solutions for the illegal settlements and refugees.
Just a few of the things that spring out, yeah man real generous.

And again, how did PALESTINES start the three wars you talked about?

Oh wait they didnt...

Were the Palestinians allied with the people who started the wars? "Airspace rights" means the ability of Israel to patrol the airspace to defend itself. No one seriously believed that "right of returN" was a tenable demand. Palestine lost those water rights as a result of '67. I don't know what sort of geographical changes would've needed to be enacted to actually put the water resources in Palestinian land, but that obviously doesn't mean that Palestine was going to be without water had they accepted.

Anyways, I wonder what other concessions Israel would have given Palestine had Arafat recognized the existence and importance of the Temple Mount.