[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3200494.stm

Well done, tubby.

[lil'babykitten]

Sharon would have been even more stupid than he already is to have gone ahead with such a plan in the first place.

It's a good move. But it has no implications on the 'peace process'.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3200494.stm

Well done, tubby.

I suspect that the Bush administration was at least a factor here -- they made it clear that expelling Arafat would not be the way to go.

Perhaps Sharon et al are just hoping he'll die off soon anyway (though I imagine that many people will claim the Mossad killed Arafat whenever he does kick off).

It'll be interesting what happens when Arafat is gone -- it seems to me that there will be quite a power vacuum left in the PA, with no clear leader to take over the 3 major offices Arafat presides over.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
I suspect that the Bush administration was at least a factor here -- they made it clear that expelling Arafat would not be the way to go.

So why did they veto the UNSC resolution?

[einmakom]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why did they veto the UNSC resolution?

For the reasons the US stated: the UNSC resolution didn't condemn the terrorist actions that Arafat has taken against Israel.

Bring a resolution that isn't lopsided, and see what happens.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
For the reasons the US stated: the UNSC resolution didn't condemn the terrorist actions that Arafat has taken against Israel.

Bring a resolution that isn't lopsided, and see what happens.

"Reiterates its demands for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction"

The resolution condemned all terrorist actions. What is the point in singling out one or two specific terrorist organizations? Surely some will slip through the net or new ones will spring up outside the net?

Or are we suggesting that certain forms of terrorism are permissible - namely the forms used by the Israeli government?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
I suspect that the Bush administration was at least a factor here -- they made it clear that expelling Arafat would not be the way to go.

Yeah I mean Bush cares so much about the Israel-Palestine situation. Thats why his election campaign is at the top of his agenda now.

[nvaughan3]

forget expelling him, i wish sharon would assasinate the son of a bitch. preferably by becoming a suicide bomber himself.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by eklipse:
"Reiterates its demands for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction"

The resolution condemned all terrorist actions. What is the point in singling out one or two specific terrorist organizations? Surely some will slip through the net or new ones will spring up outside the net?

Or are we suggesting that certain forms of terrorism are permissible - namely the forms used by the Israeli government?

Arafat's responsibility is twofold:

One, he's the head of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and Al-Fatah. Al-Fatah killed three Israelis yesterday alone.

Two, he's the elected President (of a people who no longer hold elections, so there's no good way for them to oust him, conveniently.)
It is his responsibility to honor his promises to end terrorist actions from within his citizenry. In case you missed it, see number one.

So, his responsibility is one that needs to be mentioned in any resolution specific enough to condemn expelling him. Such a resolution needs to be likewise specific in mentioning his culpability. Anything less (and the UNSC resolution was absolutely less) is lopsided.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Arafat's responsibility is twofold:

One, he's the head of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and Al-Fatah. Al-Fatah killed three Israelis yesterday alone.

'...killed three Israeli soldiers' - Why is it that whenever an Israeli is killed they are just an 'Israeli', but, whenever a Palestinian is killed they are a 'militant'/'terrorist'?

This point would have had more weight to it if Israel hadn't already killed 3 Palestinians today.

Two, he's the elected President (of a people who no longer hold elections, so there's no good way for them to oust him, conveniently.)
It is his responsibility to honor his promises to end terrorist actions from within his citizenry. In case you missed it, see number one.

So, his responsibility is one that needs to be mentioned in any resolution specific enough to condemn expelling him. Such a resolution needs to be likewise specific in mentioning his culpability. Anything less (and the UNSC resolution was absolutely less) is lopsided.

Are you really complaining just because the resolution did not specifically name Arafat in it's condemnation of terrorism?

The resolution didn't name Sharon as the man who orders missile strikes in civilian populated areas either - you don't seem too bothered by that.

The resolution condemned all forms of terrorism - arguing over who is to blame in this case is petty and highly suspicious.

[einmakom]

I am not complaining at all.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer which the US publicly answered with.

When you asked for elaboration, I ventured with an answer again.

Arafat is responsible for all terror by his refusal to honor his promise to apprehend those who commit such acts. He is specifically responsible for the acts committed by the groups he heads.

The resolution was lopsided according to the US, so it vetoed it. As is their right.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Arafat is responsible for all terror by his refusal to honor his promise to apprehend those who commit such acts. He is specifically responsible for the acts committed by the groups he heads.

The resolution was lopsided according to the US, so it vetoed it. As is their right.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by einmakom:
I am not complaining at all.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer which the US publicly answered with.

When you asked for elaboration, I ventured with an answer again.

Arafat is responsible for all terror by his refusal to honor his promise to apprehend those who commit such acts. He is specifically responsible for the acts committed by the groups he heads.

The resolution was lopsided according to the US, so it vetoed it. As is their right.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
I am not complaining at all.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer which the US publicly answered with.

When you asked for elaboration, I ventured with an answer again.

I was referring to the complaint that the resolution was lopsided - I didn't mean to imply you were 'whining and winging'.

Arafat is responsible for all terror by his refusal to honor his promise to apprehend those who commit such acts. He is specifically responsible for the acts committed by the groups he heads.

Sharon is equally responsible for the forces under his command and the acts of terror they commit.

This is why this particular resolution would have been a good one to get passed, it condemned both sides for their mutual acts of stupidity.

The resolution was lopsided according to the US, so it vetoed it. As is their right.

No one is questioning America's 'right', I'm questioning the mentality behind it's reasoning.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
forget expelling him, i wish sharon would assasinate the son of a bitch. preferably by becoming a suicide bomber himself.

I'm willing to go there and strap it on myself.

I'll even stand back in the distance with a camera. We can stream with QuickTime Mp4. Perhaps Apple can donate bandwidth?

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yeah I mean Bush cares so much about the Israel-Palestine situation. Thats why his election campaign is at the top of his agenda now.
[/B]

First of all, Bush was pushing the roadmap quite vehemently -- you'd think someone such as yourself who wishes to see a settlement should praise that.

Of course he's working on issues that are important to get re-elected, that's what his job is. By focusing on issues that people here find pressing and important, he's doing his job, no?

The US didn't create Israel/Palestine, the US didn't cause Israel's Arab neighbors to attack Israel repeatedly when the state was first formed by UN decree (UK submitted). The US didn't cause the eons of racial/religious tension in the region.

The UK submitted the UN proposal, and Palestine was a UK colony prior to that -- why not tell the UK to solve the problem, if they care so much about it?

Why you think the US is "responsible" for solving the problem there is beyond me. I'm glad we're doing it, but I certainly don't feel we're responsible. Why don't the nations in the region get together and work out a proper settlement of the issue?

[moki]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Arafat is responsible for all terror by his refusal to honor his promise to apprehend those who commit such acts. He is specifically responsible for the acts committed by the groups he heads.

The resolution was lopsided according to the US, so it vetoed it. As is their right.

Exactly right...

[AutoJC]

Sharon rules out expelling Arafat

What a shame. He must have knuckled under from pressure from America.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
First of all, Bush was pushing the roadmap quite vehemently -- you'd think someone such as yourself who wishes to see a settlement should praise that.

Bush was 'pushing the roadmap quite vehemently' when he wanted political cover for going into Iraq.

Where is the roadmap now?

Of course he's working on issues that are important to get re-elected, that's what his job is. By focusing on issues that people here find pressing and important, he's doing his job, no?

So why make the effort to meddle in the first place if he had no plans to follow through?

The US didn't create Israel/Palestine, the US didn't cause Israel's Arab neighbors to attack Israel repeatedly when the state was first formed by UN decree (UK submitted). The US didn't cause the eons of racial/religious tension in the region.

'Decades' not 'eons'. You are correct on the other points though, all America ever did was provide the money and military hardware for Israel's calculated oppression and devastation of the Palestinan people ( ).

The UK submitted the UN proposal, and Palestine was a UK colony prior to that -- why not tell the UK to solve the problem, if they care so much about it?

They don't care about it much, if at all - besides, the UK won't do anything unless America tells them to.

Why you think the US is "responsible" for solving the problem there is beyond me. I'm glad we're doing it, but I certainly don't feel we're responsible. Why don't the nations in the region get together and work out a proper settlement of the issue?

The US is not responsible for solving the problem but it is responsible (partly) for perpetuating it.

[lil'babykitten]

well uh... thanks eklipse!
I think eklipse somes up what I would have said, which is just as well since I have a hell of a lot of work to be getting on with!

Carry on.

[moki]

So why make the effort to meddle in the first place if he had no plans to follow through?

The US tried -- and tried very hard -- but the circle of violence there is not something we should get into and *impose* a solution on. The outcry would be deafening the world over, even if the end result would be better for all involved.

A better question might be, why isn't anyone ELSE trying to get involved to solve the problem? Instead of blaming the US for trying, why not blame all of the critics who just sit on the sidelines and do absolutely nothing to attempt to solve the problem? hrm?

'Decades' not 'eons'. You are correct on the other points though, all America ever did was provide the money and military hardware for Israel's calculated oppression and devastation of the Palestinan people ( ).

Sorry, thousands of years, then. You seem to avoid the fact entirely that the US also sends aid to the PA -- which then disappears into god knows where, because Arafat has no public record of where any of the money goes. It clearly isn't going to improving any of the living conditions in the PA, though.

They don't care about it much, if at all - besides, the UK won't do anything unless America tells them to.

That's quite inaccurate, and very insulting to people from the UK.

The US is not responsible for solving the problem but it is responsible (partly) for perpetuating it.

So any country that we give aid to in one form or another, we're responsible for anything that country does? Interesting logic -- looks like the US is responsible for Egypt too, then (the second largest recipient of American aid), Taiwan, and most every other country on the planet.

In any event, you miss the point. The attitude of Kitten seems to be to blame the US for not solving the problem in Israel/Palestine. I submit that this is flawed thinking; a greater onus, one would think, would be on countries in the region to band together and solve the problem in a reasonable manner.

However, the countries around the area have clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in helping the Palestinians either, except as a scapegoat for diffusing tension that would be aimed at their own regimes.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
The US tried -- and tried very hard -- but the circle of violence there is not something we should get into and *impose* a solution on. The outcry would be deafening the world over, even if the end result would be better for all involved.

A better question might be, why isn't anyone ELSE trying to get involved to solve the problem? Instead of blaming the US for trying, why not blame all of the critics who just sit on the sidelines and do absolutely nothing to attempt to solve the problem? hrm?

America appeared to try hard when it suited their interests, now that those interests have been served they are nowhere to be seen. I'm not saying others shouldn't be involved, I wish there were more multi-national peace efforts, but those involved should at least see these initiatives through to the end.

Sorry, thousands of years, then. You seem to avoid the fact entirely that the US also sends aid to the PA -- which then disappears into god knows where, because Arafat has no public record of where any of the money goes. It clearly isn't going to improving any of the living conditions in the PA, though.

No, still wrong, tens of years - this situation only sprang up in the last century or so, it's not some kind of ancient religious blood feud.

The US sends money to the PA - which, I guess you're insinuating, goes into lining Arafat's coffers and/or into the suicide bombing effort, so what? All this proves is that the US is guilty of arming both sides and letting them 'go at it' - which is even more cruel and callous.

That's quite inaccurate, and very insulting to people from the UK.

Meh. Sometimes the truth hurts.

So any country that we give aid to in one form or another, we're responsible for anything that country does? Interesting logic -- looks like the US is responsible for Egypt too, then (the second largest recipient of American aid), Taiwan, and most every other country on the planet.

No, not at first. If it becomes evident that the 'aid' (and by 'aid' we are really talking about money and military hardware) is being used to oppress and selectively slaughter a people - then the 'aid' should be cut off. To not do so is to become complicit in the atrocities being carried out.

In any event, you miss the point. The attitude of Kitten seems to be to blame the US for not solving the problem in Israel/Palestine. I submit that this is flawed thinking; a greater onus, one would think, would be on countries in the region to band together and solve the problem in a reasonable manner.

However, the countries around the area have clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in helping the Palestinians either, except as a scapegoat for diffusing tension that would be aimed at their own regimes.

I agree with much of this. The problem I have is with assigning credit to America that has not been earned.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
The attitude of Kitten seems to be to blame the US for not solving the problem in Israel/Palestine. I submit that this is flawed thinking; a greater onus, one would think, would be on countries in the region to band together and solve the problem in a reasonable manner.

Not really, I just think it sucks how Bush pretends he gives a sh1t. America is understood to be the broker between Israel and Palestine, particularly with the most recent 'road-map to peace'. He pushed that for a while and now it has collapsed he's decided to leave it alone. So what he was really in it for was to boost his ratings amongst the American public, as he was seen to be at the forefront of the negotiations. Since it's failed, he's pushed it to one side.

I'd rather he wasn't involved at all because America is so blatantly biased toward Israel. You know actually I think Tony Blair has the brains to help negotiate a workable solution. But as eklipse has already noted, Britain won't get involved without having America's hand to hold.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
You seem to avoid the fact entirely that the US also sends aid to the PA -- which then disappears into god knows where, because Arafat has no public record of where any of the money goes. It clearly isn't going to improving any of the living conditions in the PA, though.

LOL! Aid to the PA is an infinitesimal part of what the US gives to Israel - and has been frozen recently anyway.
And what does Israel do with that aid? (hint: settlements, wall, weaponry, etc.)

The attitude of Kitten seems to be to blame the US for not solving the problem in Israel/Palestine.

It is undeniable that the US (succesfully) pretends to be the only broker in the Israel/Palestine issue. And a heavily biased one.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Not really, I just think it sucks how Bush pretends he gives a sh1t. America is understood to be the broker between Israel and Palestine, particularly with the most recent 'road-map to peace'. He pushed that for a while and now it has collapsed he's decided to leave it alone.

Then I have a new proposal that should make you happy. I propose that the US no longer give a sh1t at all, and join the rest of the world in doing absolutely nothing to settle the Israel/Palestine issue.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Then I have a new proposal that should make you happy. I propose that the US no longer give a sh1t at all, and join the rest of the world in doing absolutely nothing to settle the Israel/Palestine issue.

are those the only two options?

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
are those the only two options?

My point is that such an inordinate amount of crap is given to Bush, and to the US, for not solving a problem that the rest of the world doesn't even *attempt* to solve. I find it hypocritical that the one country that has consistently tried to solve the problem in the region for decades on end is given flak for it, while every other country in the world -- including those in the region -- just sitting on their hands doing nothing are given a free pass.

So I say screw it. Let's join the rest of the world in their apathy to actually trying to push forward a solution.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
So I say screw it. Let's join the rest of the world in their apathy to actually trying to push forward a solution.

If your proposal also includes an end to American funding of state-sponsored terrorism, I'm all for it.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
If your proposal also includes an end to American funding of state-sponsored terrorism, I'm all for it.

Yes, America should stop sending money to the PA. If you're referring to Israel, I happen to agree there as well. I have no problem selling them anything they want to buy, but I think we should discontinue aid to Israel, or at least bring it down to reasonable levels.

I should note, though, that the funding that the US has given Israel is the fault of those who attacked Israel. Historically, the US did not give much in the way of funding to Israel, but after Israel was repeatedly attacked, that changed.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
but I think we should discontinue aid to Israel, or at least bring it down to reasonable levels.

Unfortunately, that will never happen under this administration.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, America should stop sending money to the PA. If you're referring to Israel, I happen to agree there as well. I have no problem selling them anything they want to buy, but I think we should discontinue aid to Israel, or at least bring it down to reasonable levels.

I was referring to both.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Unfortunately, that will never happen under this administration.

Given that it is something that has been going on for a long time, spanning many administrations, I think this attempted blame being heaped only on the current administration is unfair.

I do agree though that as long as terrorist attacks continue against Israel, it's very unlikely that Bush would entertain the idea. I'll say it once again: if the PA was able to stop detonating misguided youths in an attempt to kill civilians in Israel, the entire picture of the conflict would change.

And yes, you can counter with "Well, if Israel stopped building walls, settlements, and killing Palestinian terrorists (and collaterally civilians) then the PA would stop its attacks" -- that may or may not be true. Given that many want Israel to not exist in the middle east at all, I'm a little doubtful.

But it doesn't matter. I'm talking about reaching a goal. If the PA's goal is their own state, then this is how to accomplish it: non-violent resistance. The US would join the world in condemning any actions Israel took that were unprovoked, and we might actually see progress in the area.

However, I don't think that's the goal of many people in the region. I think they would lose their relevancy if there actually was a peaceful solution, and there's also plenty of hatred and emotion running around. It'll take generations to get over that, even after the death stops.

But this is all tangental. Kitten, I'm hoping you'll offer a direct answer. Is this what you want? Would you rather the US not try to reach a settlement at all? Do you reserve any distain for the countries who do absolutely nothing to try to solve the problem, including all of the neighboring countries?

Personally, I'm glad the US is at least trying, even if it is failing -- that's more than the rest of the world is doing, and the US should be praised for that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Unfortunately, that will never happen under this administration.

Nothing to do with this administration. The one before that and the one before that and so on has helped.

As so we should.

Israel is not the great Satan. Either is the US.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why did they veto the UNSC resolution?

Tradition

[moki]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Tradition

Nah. If the resolution equally condemned the Palestinian terrorism, as the US noted, they would not have vetoed it. Seems reasonable to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
forget expelling him, i wish sharon would assasinate the son of a bitch. preferably by becoming a suicide bomber himself.

Just to clarify; are you suggesting that Sharon take on the role of suicide bomber to assasinate Arafat?

THAT I would agree with. Getting rid of BOTH of them simultaneously would go long way towards resolving the Israel/Palestine issue.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Nah. If the resolution equally condemned the Palestinian terrorism, as the US noted, they would not have vetoed it. Seems reasonable to me.

Originally vetoed by the US:
Reiterates its demands for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction

What part of 'all' is unequal?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What part of 'all' is unequal?

The part that suggests Israel is somehow doing something wrong

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
Given that it is something that has been going on for a long time, spanning many administrations, I think this attempted blame being heaped only on the current administration is unfair.

I do agree though that as long as terrorist attacks continue against Israel, it's very unlikely that Bush would entertain the idea. I'll say it once again: if the PA was able to stop detonating misguided youths in an attempt to kill civilians in Israel, the entire picture of the conflict would change.

And yes, you can counter with "Well, if Israel stopped building walls, settlements, and killing Palestinian terrorists (and collaterally civilians) then the PA would stop its attacks" -- that may or may not be true. Given that many want Israel to not exist in the middle east at all, I'm a little doubtful.

But it doesn't matter. I'm talking about reaching a goal. If the PA's goal is their own state, then this is how to accomplish it: non-violent resistance. The US would join the world in condemning any actions Israel took that were unprovoked, and we might actually see progress in the area.

However, I don't think that's the goal of many people in the region. I think they would lose their relevancy if there actually was a peaceful solution, and there's also plenty of hatred and emotion running around. It'll take generations to get over that, even after the death stops.

But this is all tangental. Kitten, I'm hoping you'll offer a direct answer. Is this what you want? Would you rather the US not try to reach a settlement at all? Do you reserve any distain for the countries who do absolutely nothing to try to solve the problem, including all of the neighboring countries?

Personally, I'm glad the US is at least trying, even if it is failing -- that's more than the rest of the world is doing, and the US should be praised for that.

No no, American intervention in foreign affairs for pure self interest is something that has frequently occurred throughout history. I don't expect that to change any time soon. But we are talking about now, and the Bush administration is involved, thus I reference to them.

I'd still like to see someone here show me the evidence to suggest that 'most Palestinians want to see Israel/Jews removed completely'. This to me smells of BS.

The PA's goal, as you have said is to reach an independent state of Palestine. The problem is, their methods are no longer helping them. The whole reason for the uprising was due to a lack of international attention. The intifada gave them a voice but it may also be the very thing that makes them lose it.

Yes moki, I'd rather the US pull out of the process completely. They have done nothing to resolve the situation. They will never do anything, anywhere unless it serves their own interest. This style of approach is a recipe for conflict in itself. Any external aid needs to be there with the sole intent of resolving a situation with no strings attached. Now the problem is, we don't have an organisation capable of this. I would like to see the UN handle the peace proceedings but unfortunately they hold no power or influence.
The US will never be able to resolve the situation unless they genuinely become a neutral player. At the moment they are totally biased in favour of Israel.

I have just as much disdain for the surrounding Arab countries who do nothing but sit on their collective asses, offering the odd condemnation of Israel's actions and then going back to drinking their tea.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yes moki, I'd rather the US pull out of the process completely. They have done nothing to resolve the situation. They will never do anything, anywhere unless it serves their own interest. This style of approach is a recipe for conflict in itself. Any external aid needs to be there with the sole intent of resolving a situation with no strings attached. Now the problem is, we don't have an organisation capable of this. I would like to see the UN handle the peace proceedings but unfortunately they hold no power or influence.
The US will never be able to resolve the situation unless they genuinely become a neutral player. At the moment they are totally biased in favour of Israel.

OK, got it. US evil. US bad. Anything US does = self interest and evil. Out of curiosity, what self-interest does the US pursue in attempting to get peace between Israel and the PA? The only self-interest I can see is to diffuse tensions the world over. How is that a bad thing?

Personally, I think it is LESS excusable for countries to do absolutely nothing and bitch at the one country that is trying to resolve the matter (and has consistently tried for years).

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I have just as much disdain for the surrounding Arab countries who do nothing but sit on their collective asses, offering the odd condemnation of Israel's actions and then going back to drinking their tea.

Glad to hear you say it -- though I've yet to see you posting anything to that effect before, just railing against the US.

I find it infinitely more distasteful that governments in the area do absolutely nothing to genuinely attempt to solve the problem, but rather use it to perpetuate an outlet for unrest in their own countries.

I heartily agree with you then -- let the US withdraw completely from attempting to make peace in the middle east, and let the various countries in the area put up or shut up in terms of actually doing something for a change.

Though if the US withdraws all attempts to negotiate peace there, and withdraws all aid/support to Israel, that means the US loses influence over Israel. To me, that means Sharon et al cast off the yolk that the US has used to restrain them from acting, and I think the place turns into a bloodbath.

hrm, maybe the US's interest in the area isn't so bad after all?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
OK, got it. US evil. US bad. Anything US does = self interest and evil....

No, not in every case - there have been some useful US led peace efforts in the past, but this most recent 'Roadmap' strategy appears to have been nothing more than a carrot to get the Arab 'donkey' behind the Iraq invasion. Once that objective was achieved we heard little more about the roadmap and America has gone back to vetoeing UN resolutions.

Glad to hear you say it -- though I've yet to see you posting anything to that effect before, just railing against the US.

Well, to be fair, there isn't much to say; the Arabs do **** all - end of story. Until they make some sort of measurable move (in any direction) one would just be talking in a vacuum. The other thing is that most Arab 'governments' are in the pocket of the US - they won't move unless Washington instructs them to, regardless of the opinion of the Arab street.