[shmerek]

EDIT: Can't change the title of the thread but obviously it is supposed to read "sanctions" not "sanctons"

From here. Sharon disgusts me, he doesn't want peace and has never done anything to forward that cause.

Sharon defies US on West Bank fence to cut into West Bank

By Justin Huggler in Jerusalem

01 October 2003

The fence that Israel is building to seal off the West Bank will enclose a Jewish settlement deep inside the occupied territories, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister, has said.

His vow on the settlement in Ariel, in defiance of US pressure, came as William Burns, a State Department official, said the growth of Jewish settlements "could threaten the future of Israel as a Jewish democracy".

The "separation fence" is a series of concrete walls and high metal fences. Israel claims the sole aim is to stop would-be suicide bombers crossing into Israel but that claim is belied by the fact the fence is not being built along the 1967 "Green Line" that divides Israel from the occupied West Bank. Instead, it cuts deep inside the West Bank, and Palestinians and international observers alike, including Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Adviser, have said it appears to be an attempt to grab more land.

The US has been pressing Israel to build the fence along the Green Line. In particular, the US urged Israel not to go ahead with the Ariel section, which will have to cut 17 miles into the West Bank so the settlement is on the "Israeli" side.

The Israeli government had indicated it might bow to the American pressure but Mr Sharon told a meeting of Likud MPs: "The separation fence will be built east of Ariel and east of Kedumim [another settlement]. If we reach a point where the matter once again creates a dispute, we will sit with the Americans again."

Mr Burns told a US-Arab Economic Forum in Detroit that Israel's support for the settlements was putting the peace process - and the "two-state solution" envisaged by President Bush - in jeopardy. He was referring to predictions that Jews will be a minority in Israel and the occupied territories by the year 2020.

The UN called yesterday for governments to condemn the fence as illegal.

[eklipse]

Wait for it.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Wait for it.

The accusation of a bias news source or that I endorse terrorism or that I am anti-Semitic ?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The accusation of a bias news source or that I endorse terrorism or that I am anti-Semitic ?

Well I meant the sanctions in a sarcastic way, but yeah, those too!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well I meant the sanctions in a sarcastic way, but yeah, those too!

Ok so we have condemnation, now what? This is partly why this whole process never ever goes anywhere. Everything is one sided. As soon as Israel is doing something so blatantly against the peace process all they get is 'wide spread condemnation'.

[AutoJC]

Arafat and the PLO own Shmerek.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


Ok so we have condemnation, now what? This is partly why this whole process never ever goes anywhere. Everything is one sided. As soon as Israel is doing something so blatantly against the peace process all they get is 'wide spread condemnation'.

Doesn't amount to much does it?

[sanity assassin]

It's the same old story, Israel gets to re-write the peace-plan whichever way it wants to; and if the Palestinians were to do the same, well, we know what happens then.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Doesn't amount to much does it?

Exactly, it doesn't. The only way this will work is if both sides are made to comply. You cannot expect the suicide bombers to cease while Israel builds a wall that steals land that this whole damn conflict is about. It's so ****ing stupid and in blatant violation.

[eklipse]

The Roadmap to Peace:

[MacGorilla]

That fence will be built, unfortunately. No one in the US has the spine to stand up to Israel. Beyond Israel's "Its to stop terrorism" propaganda, I'm suspicious.

[vmpaul]

I have a non-inflammatory, non-partisan (at least I think it is) question:

Does anybody see a time when we'll see some 3rd-party intervention, in the form of troops, in this area? Whether it's UN troops or American?

Do you think it's a good idea? is there any other option?

I mean, if we're spending all this money (and lives) in Iraq is it such a big step to secure an area that has been even more volatile and key? Is there any other way to enforce the UN resolutions and borders?

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I have a non-inflammatory, non-partisan (at least I think it is) question:

Does anybody see a time when we'll see some 3rd-party intervention, in the form of troops, in this area? Whether it's UN troops or American?

Do you think it's a good idea? is there any other option?

I mean, if we're spending all this money (and lives) in Iraq is it such a big step to secure an area that has been even more volatile and key? Is there any other way to enforce the UN resolutions and borders?

It's always looked doubtful, the Palestinians have long asked for the UN to send in troops, or peacekeepers, but Israel just knocks that idea right out of the sky each time. With the US as a strong ally, adn supporter of Israel, it looks like there won't be much chance of a 3d party mediating on the ground between the warring parties
Just look what happened after the massacre at Jenin, Israel refused the UN to even investigate it due to them not liking the scope of the investigation.

Maybe one day somethign will happen.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
It's always looked doubtful, the Palestinians have long asked for the UN to send in troops, or peacekeepers, but Israel just knocks that idea right out of the sky each time. With the US as a strong ally, adn supporter of Israel, it looks like there won't be much chance of a 3d party mediating on the ground between the warring parties
Just look what happened after the massacre at Jenin, Israel refused the UN to even investigate it due to them not liking the scope of the investigation.

Maybe one day somethign will happen.

What kind of political pressure, do you think would it take for Israel to acquiesce to 3rd-party intervention?

Do you think it's has be another large casualty count (on either side) or something else? Maybe a US administration that is neutral enough to insist upon it? Not like that's close to happening.

I have a running theory that things have to get really bad before they get better. It's been so bad in that area for so long that I'm afraid of what it will take for things to get better.

[thunderous_funker]

The EU has spent millions in the occupied territories on infastructure and supplies. Much of that investment was destroyed by Israel without so much as an admission of regret.

If the EU or someone else were to get involved militarily, you'd actually have US armed troops operating against EU/Other armed troops. That simply will not happen.

Which is exactly why the US is the only legitimate 3rd party that can bring both sides to peace.

Its obvious to many of us outside observers that the US could probably bring Israel into compliance by witholding the billions we give them each year. But that is because we don't receive generous donations from pro-Israeli lobby groups and defense contractors.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Which is exactly why the US is the only legitimate 3rd party that can bring both sides to peace.

Its obvious to many of us outside observers that the US could probably bring Israel into compliance by witholding the billions we give them each year. But that is because we don't receive generous donations from pro-Israeli lobby groups and defense contractors.

More legitimate than a UN force?

Yes, independence does help clear the fog sometimes.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
More legitimate than a UN force?

I didn't mean it in the legal or moral sense. Perhaps "realistic" would have been a better choice of words. As long as the US arms Israel to the tune of $3-5 billion every year, it is in the unique position to dictate the terms of peace.

[vmpaul]

Since we're speculating...

What's your sense of how this will end? In the long term, that is.

In context: One of the most cogent remarks I've heard regarding the Israeli-Palestinian problem comes from Fareed Zakaria, he said (to paraphrase) "We all see the light at the end of the tunnel (a 2-state solution). We just can't find the tunnel."

I always thought that contained a ring of truth. Now, I'm not so sure.

[thunderous_funker]

There are only 2 choices:

1) exterminate the Palestinians (they will never give up)
2) 2 states

While the latter seems almost laughably obvious, it seems certain political factions with surprising power and authority seem bent on the former.

What do I think will happen? Depends on what the citizens of the world are willing to turn a blind eye to.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Exactly, it doesn't. The only way this will work is if both sides are made to comply. You cannot expect the suicide bombers to cease while Israel builds a wall that steals land that this whole damn conflict is about. It's so ****ing stupid and in blatant violation.

so are you saying that suicide bombings are justifed because Israel continues building a fence? Hamas and the Jihad have the right to slaughter women and babies over a fence?

Say it ain't so, infidel.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If the EU or someone else were to get involved militarily, you'd actually have US armed troops operating against EU/Other armed troops. That simply will not happen.

it wouldn't happen because the EU isn't unified enough to get involved militarily, nor could it project andsustain the level of forces needed to challenge Israeli power.

France does well at kicking around rebellious Africans, but they'd wet their panties at a real fight. hahah.

And Israel has the ultimate sovereignty guarantee--the Bomb.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it wouldn't happen because the EU isn't unified enough to get involved militarily, nor could it project andsustain the level of forces needed to challenge Israeli power.

France does well at kicking around rebellious Africans, but they'd wet their panties at a real fight. hahah.

And Israel has the ultimate sovereignty guarantee--the Bomb.

Don't forget, France has it too.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Don't forget, France has it too.

I know. But The Bomb isn't for use by The West and Israel unless it's in a defensive role.

Psychopaths like Usama et al would nuke The West in a second if they could.

[shmerek]

Eventually there will have to be 2 states unless the Israelis exterminate the palestinians. I don't know how long the US and the rest of the world can pay only lip service to this problem.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There are only 2 choices:

1) exterminate the Palestinians (they will never give up)
2) 2 states

While the latter seems almost laughably obvious, it seems certain political factions with surprising power and authority seem bent on the former.

What do I think will happen? Depends on what the citizens of the world are willing to turn a blind eye to.

Ouch, that's cynical. But who can blame you?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Eventually there will have to be 2 states unless the Israelis exterminate the palestinians. I don't know how long the US and the rest of the world can pay only lip service to this problem.

Several more decades, at minimum, for the US.

An eternity if you wait for anybody else to make an effort.

Or, until Israel destroys all the so-called Palestinians. Hey, if Israel is all that bad - it'll happen. Or would have already.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Don't forget, France has it too.

The only bombs they have are Renaults, Peugeots, and Citroens.

Scary to think that France has nuclear power, given their ability to screw up in industry

[Wiskedjak]

Perhaps somebody should decide that Israel represents a significant threat to world peace (by deliberately inciting terrorism) and take preemptive actions against Israel.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
The only bombs they have are Renaults, Peugeots, and Citroens.

Scary to think that France has nuclear power

As well as a glorious history and a culture to admire.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
... Or, until Israel destroys all the so-called Palestinians ...

I think Isreal would like nothing more than to destroy the Palestinians, but I don't think they feel they can get away with doing the very thing they were victims of 50 years ago.

[Spliffdaddy]

um. Of course they could 'get away with it'.

Who's gonna stop 'em?

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think even the US could support Israel in genocide.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
That fence will be built, unfortunately. No one in the US has the spine to stand up to Israel. Beyond Israel's "Its to stop terrorism" propaganda, I'm suspicious.

Sad, but true.

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I have a non-inflammatory, non-partisan (at least I think it is) question:

Does anybody see a time when we'll see some 3rd-party intervention, in the form of troops, in this area? Whether it's UN troops or American?

Do you think it's a good idea? is there any other option?

I mean, if we're spending all this money (and lives) in Iraq is it such a big step to secure an area that has been even more volatile and key? Is there any other way to enforce the UN resolutions and borders?

Israel is dead against third party intervention. Afarat et. al. have been at times for it, but Israel refuses the idea. Not even from western countries.

The closest they will allow is a roadmap, or a neutral ground to hold negotiations (Camp David). But intervention is expressly against their policy.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps somebody should decide that Israel represents a significant threat to world peace (by deliberately inciting terrorism) and take preemptive actions against Israel.

Israel can't be harmful because it's a Jewish state... it's Kosher. Not harmful you anti-semite.

I beat Zim to reply to that



Personally I agree. Israel's agression goes against the principle of the war on terror... which is to stop terrorism. To stop terrorism, the easies (blood free) method, is to stop motivation.

If we removed the Israeli Regime, and put in a new government of younger, Israeli's... I would bet that in 5 years, this is all over.

Fighting hatred with hatred doesn't work. It's been tried over and over:

Germany felt hated after WWI... Tried fighting it. Turned into WWII, millions died, and they once again were hated.

France and Germany did the same thing for hundreds of years. Didn't accomplish a thing. Now both are in the EU. Now both are doing much better.


This is like the US going to war with Canada because they have so much land and don't use it all. It would be a senseless war, and accomplish nothing. Our partnerships over things like NORAD, and other military ventures, NAFTA, etc. are much more beneficial. We do disagree with Canada every so often... but in the end, it's better to just disagree and live... rather than take military action.

In theory, if we were serious about this "War on Terror", we would invade Canada for several miles in, so that we have a buffer to prevent terrorists from infultrating... as several suspected terrorists missing in our country are thought to have entered through that border.

But why don't we? Because there is nothing to gain. Working with them is better than against them. Of course someone could die if one of these terrorists goes into action.

But how many more will die if we divert our energy into insiting Canada? And during that war... will we be focused on the WOT?

I doubt it.


Israel is insiting this, because it's good for politics. As long as this goes on, these old birds can hang onto power. As soon as tensions ease, younger people, who are more liberal are going to rise to power.

People associate age with wisdom. So someone old and stuborn makes a great leader.

It's politics. Strait up. As long as Sharon keeps the attacks coming. He can be seen as a hero, and have statues raised in his name when he dies.

He achieves peace... and he will be left as an unknown name to future generations.

Nobody errects monuments to a politican. They errect monuments to the "underdog", the "hero", the "strong".

Peace in public perception doesn't qualify.