[Hugi]

Aaah, good old government-sanctioned killing without the irritating overhead of trials. Hooray for the war on terrorism.

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/c...55E401,00.html

[Atef's Carcase]

whacking people in foreign countries isn't anything new. There's one thing working against it: governments guard their authority tightly, so you can bet that no matter how Israel-friendly a country is, it won't appreciate Mossad actions.

However, if Mossad can take down some Hamas losers, I wouldn't care if they blasted them in downtown London. Hell, I'd offer to buy them drinks.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
Hell, I'd offer to buy them drinks.

They'd probably shoot you too if you tried that at such an akward moment.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
Hell, I'd offer to buy them drinks.

Jewish people tend not to drink. Go to a deli with them.

[Atef's Carcase]

Originally posted by Thrax:
Jewish people tend not to drink. Go to a deli with them.

You don't know the Jews I do, then.
But a deli sounds quite fine. Fried Hamas Carcase. Yummy!

[Hugi]

Originally posted by Thrax:
Jewish people tend not to drink. Go to a deli with them.

_Everyone_ knows that Jews get their liquid through osmosis.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by hugi:
_Everyone_ knows that Jews get their liquid through osmosis.

I meant that Jewish people tend not to drink alcohol.

I haven't figured out how to do this osmosis thing just yet.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by hugi:
_Everyone_ knows that Jews get their liquid through osmosis.

biohumor. my kind of humor.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
whacking people in foreign countries isn't anything new. There's one thing working against it: governments guard their authority tightly, so you can bet that no matter how Israel-friendly a country is, it won't appreciate Mossad actions.

However, if Mossad can take down some Hamas losers, I wouldn't care if they blasted them in downtown London. Hell, I'd offer to buy them drinks.

What bothers me is that these are executions without law and order. Some Israeli official decides that someone should die - and his assassins will take care of it pronto.

In my opinion, that's not very civilized.

[Atef's Carcase]

Originally posted by hugi:
What bothers me is that these are executions without law and order. Some Israeli official decides that someone should die - and his assassins will take care of it pronto.

In my opinion, that's not very civilized.

I agree! It shouldn't be done. I don't want mossad operating in my country! However, like I said, if some leader of Hamas or Islamic Jihad is wandering the streets of Berlin or London, and then is 'mysteriously' killed in a hit-and-run auto accident, I won't care. Just another dead terrorist. The more the better--Allah has plenty of places for them in Hell.

[rambo47]

When the terrorist group Black September killed those Israeli athletes in Munich, The Mossad spend something like 8 years tracking them down all over the world. They killed every one of them, on streets, in their beds, where ever. I remember a small announcement in the New York Times about it.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
Allah has plenty of places for them in Hell.

I thought that they were automatically sent to heaven and given 75 virgins for doing that.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by rambo47:
When the terrorist group Black September killed those Israeli athletes in Munich, The Mossad spend something like 8 years tracking them down all over the world. They killed every one of them, on streets, in their beds, where ever. I remember a small announcement in the New York Times about it.

Ya, they were fairly unrelenting. I couldn't blame the Israelis. I would do the same if my family were killed by terrorists.

[Atef's Carcase]

Originally posted by Thrax:
I thought that they were automatically sent to heaven and given 75 virgins for doing that.

That's what I thought, too. But my 'reward' for murdering thousands of infidels wasn't Paradise and virgins. In Hell, I got what I deserved: hourly sodomisations by Hitler (truly Hell's bottom-feeder. Get the pun? heheh.) and whippings by the Tool of Satan--that's right, Schroder. Yeah, his body is still on earth, but he used and abused the German people so badly in the elections, and has terribly mismanged that great country that Allah is already punishing his soul.

Harken, oh ye infidels, and repent!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Thrax:
I meant that Jewish people tend not to drink alcohol.

That would be news to the Israeli vineyards and breweries producing alcoholic beverages.

Maccabee and Goldstar beer,
And the wineries of Yarden, Gamla, Ramat HaGolan, Carmel, Barkan, Binyamina, Tishbi will be very surprised by your news.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That would be news to the Israeli vineyards and breweries producing alcoholic beverages.

Maccabee and Goldstar beer,
And the wineries of Yarden, Gamla, Ramat HaGolan, Carmel, Barkan, Binyamina, Tishbi will be very surprised by your news.

What is your fav. Israeli beer? (I'm really into beers)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
I agree! It shouldn't be done. I don't want mossad operating in my country! However, like I said, if some leader of Hamas or Islamic Jihad is wandering the streets of Berlin or London, and then is 'mysteriously' killed in a hit-and-run auto accident, I won't care. Just another dead terrorist. The more the better--Allah has plenty of places for them in Hell.

If Israel claims to be a democracy, then there should be trials. Due process. If they are found guilty, that's another thing, but killing people without trial ...

Another point is that very often, you have ?collateral damage' (children, civillians nearby that are killed). What about them?

IMHO, these targeted killings (I think that is the official name for this policy) are always in conflict with human rights, thus they are no better than the bombings by the Palestinians.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If Israel claims to be a democracy, then there should be trials. Due process. If they are found guilty, that's another thing, but killing people without trial ...

Another point is that very often, you have ?collateral damage' (children, civillians nearby that are killed). What about them?

IMHO, these targeted killings (I think that is the official name for this policy) are always in conflict with human rights, thus they are no better than the bombings by the Palestinians.

I'll answer your points one by one.

(1) Democracy simply describes in very general terms how government represents the wishes of the people governed. It doesn't say anything about criminal justice, trial, punishment, or anything else of the sort. Yes, Israel conducts trials in Israel, both of Israelis and others. Remember, Israeli gave Eichmann a trial.

(2) In the sort of targeted killings we're talking about here, collateral damage is rare to non-existant. That's the point of targeting- you get the target and nothing else. The most embarrassing error in a targeting was the one in Lillehammer Norway on 07 January 1974. Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics [Salameh was killed in a 1979 car-bomb explosion in Lebanon]. Following the attack, the Mossad agents were arrested and tried before a Norwegian court. Five Israeli agents were convicted and served short jail sentences, though Israel denied responsibility for the murder. In February 1996 the Israeli government agreed to compensate the family of Ahmad Boushiki.

(3) No better is a qualitative judgement of yours. Both are distasteful, but certainly not causing collateral damage, compensating family of mistaken identities, only getting a target on a single motivation, not causing widespread panic and death, are very different actions.

[vmarks]

voodoo: Goldstar beer- Maccabee has better marketing, but I'll drink a Goldstar any day.

[Developer]

Originally posted by vmarks:
(2) In the sort of targeted killings we're talking about here, collateral damage is rare to non-existant. The most embarrassing error in a targeting was the one in Lillehammer Norway on 07 January 1974. Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

Well, one is already one too much. I mean, the guy is dead. What worse could happen to him?
They could have arrested him and it would heave cleared the mistake. Would have been even better to put the terrorists on trial and in jail, instead of secretly killing them. The victims of a crime have a right that their state takes them seriously.

[macvillage.net]

My bet would be they will start a war at the UN as they take out a few more enemy united nations officials.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by rambo47:
When the terrorist group Black September killed those Israeli athletes in Munich, The Mossad spend something like 8 years tracking them down all over the world. They killed every one of them, on streets, in their beds, where ever. I remember a small announcement in the New York Times about it.

The Munich massacre marked sort of a turning point in Israel's war against Palestinian terrorism. Golda Meir gave official sanction to the Mossad in the targeting of those Black September leaders and members directly involved with Munich, perhaps out of vengeance, but I would imagine as a deterrent as well for others.

Many of those who found themselves on the business end of Mossad guns or recipients of explosives did so while in places like Cyprus, Lebanon and Tunis, but at least two of the Black Septembrists were killed in Paris, what I would consider "friendly territory". One was killed with a bomb planted in his Paris apartment telephone, and another was an Algerian (I think), whose car was rigged with a bomb and detonated in Paris.

Others who may not have been directly tied to the Munich massacre but involved in other unsavory activities have also been eliminated on the soil of countries friendly to Israel. One was shot dead in Rome, and yet another was killed in Paris (why Paris seems to have been a hotbed for people of this ilk, I don't know).

It hasn't been by any means a one-way affair when it comes to targeted killings. In '73 an Israeli agent dealing with a Palestinian recruit in Madrid was killed. It turned out that the recruit and his friends actually belonged to Black September. Afterwards, the agent's wife received hints from Mossad that his death had been avenged.

Just as a note of interest in my babbling here, it has been common for the Mossad to execute "false-flag" operations. An assassin who believes he is working for a Palestinian or Arab group would in actuality be blindly following a Mossad directive, thus clouding the facts when it comes to determining who was responsible for an assassination. Whether any such operations have taken place on friendly soil I have no idea, but I wouldn't discount it.

Anyway, it's kind of funny to read articles like the one above, considering what has taken place in history indicates this is really nothing new.

Usually my responses here are pretty brief but this is a subject I've done quite a bit of reading on, so I felt compelled to chime in.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
My bet would be they will start a war at the UN as they take out a few more enemy united nations officials.

The problem of the future role of a United Nations presence in conflicts such as these is being much debated. But we must ask ourselves a question that has arisen as a result of this experience. People in our country and in many countries ask: What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain? Surely, then, future arrangements for peace-keeping must depend more on the agreement and the implementation of the parties themselves than on machinery which is totally at the mercy of the host country, so totally at its mercy as to be the instrument of its policies, whatever those policies may be.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The problem of the future role of a United Nations presence in conflicts such as these is being much debated. But we must ask ourselves a question that has arisen as a result of this experience. People in our country and in many countries ask: What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain? Surely, then, future arrangements for peace-keeping must depend more on the agreement and the implementation of the parties themselves than on machinery which is totally at the mercy of the host country, so totally at its mercy as to be the instrument of its policies, whatever those policies may be.

IMHO, it's wrong to tell your military it's OK to kill forign UN representitives in the region to monitor the situation.

Killing is part of war, hence killing the enemy, is war. That will always, happen. Human instinct is towards war. War is part of politics. Humans love politics.

But it's been around for quite some time from former Israeli soldiers that it's been considered OK according to the government to kill UN observers...

Killing people only there to protect the civilian interest is wrong. These are people who risk their lives to ensure that the war is to ensure people's rights, not to remove them....

[vmarks]

And Israel has never supported killing UN observers or UN officials representing countries they are in conflict with.

You've said it twice now, and said that it is "considered OK according to the government to kill UN observers... "

I'm telling you that it isn't. That Israel doesn't kill UN observers intentionally, or dismiss any accidental deaths as "OK," as you suggest.

I do tell you that the UN is hard to take seriously. When Egypt told the UN to leave the area because they were going to start a war, and the UN peacekeeping forces simply packed up and left, so that Egypt could- what good is the UN? None at all. When the UN passes resolution after resolution and can't enforce a thing, but seems to be very good at issuing comdemnation, how effective is the UN?

Despite the way the UN has withdrawn in haste, leaving Israel open to attack, and despite the fact that the enemies of Israel are openly accepted in the General and Security councils of the UN, and despite the fact that the UN regularly issues one-sided comdemnation of Israel and not her attackers, Israel still cooperates with the UN.
Israel really deserves respect for this.

[Logic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vmarks:

When the UN passes resolution after resolution and can't enforce a thing, but seems to be very good at issuing comdemnation, how effective is the UN?

The biggest problem for the UN is that a few very powerful nations don't support them. If a country in the security council frequently uses it right to veto(or says it will) the UN is useless.

Despite the way the UN has withdrawn in haste, leaving Israel open to attack, and despite the fact that the enemies of Israel are openly accepted in the General and Security councils of the UN, and despite the fact that the UN regularly issues one-sided comdemnation of Israel and not her attackers, Israel still cooperates with the UN.
Israel really deserves respect for this.

I didn't know that the UN withdrew from the area when Egypt said they would attack. Any links to a reliable source? Who should deside who should be in the general and security council? The US, Israel, North Korea or Iraq???? It is good that we have both sides in those councils so we can see both sides of the conflict. Am I wrong? What regular one-side condemnations are you talking about.... Links please!? Israel deserves respect for having good people among them, not for their policy on the UN or the intifada.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Logic:
I didn't know that the UN withdrew from the area when Egypt said they would attack. Any links to a reliable source?

Just a quickie response before off to another meeting: Nasser asked the U.N. to leave, or they would be in the firing line when the shooting started. This is historical, documented fact- look it up yourself, or better yet, go to your local bookstore and get a history book.

[vmarks]

Egypt lined up forces and made a blockade before they asked U Thant (third UNSG, same role Kofi Annan holds today as the fifth UNSG) to withdraw. Instead of consulting the Security or General Councils, Thant simply withdrew, in violation of policy.

Then Egypt attacked.

The events leading up to it, and Nassar's declarations stating there would be war are well covered in PM Abba Eban's speech to the UN, post-war.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dyv0

Another site is:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_194...day_backgd.php

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And Israel has never supported killing UN observers or UN officials representing countries they are in conflict with.

You've said it twice now, and said that it is "considered OK according to the government to kill UN observers... "

Then why do ex-soldiers say this to the media?

Why does the Israeli government refuse to condemn/prosecute?

I admit the US is far from good in this sense... our military gets away with quite a bit, but there are procedings for the "friendly fire" incident whre those Canadian soldiers died.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dyv0

Another site is:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_194...day_backgd.php

I wouldn't call those links reliable, but they show one side of the story so thanks.

And how about the other things I asked you about? Or are we playing politicians?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Logic:
I wouldn't call those links reliable, but they show one side of the story so thanks.

And how about the other things I asked you about? Or are we playing politicians?

Here is a book I would recommend if you are interested in learning more.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
I wouldn't call those links reliable, but they show one side of the story so thanks.

And how about the other things I asked you about? Or are we playing politicians?

Well, start by specifying what you want in a link to show it's reliability?
What are you willing to consider as a source, and what do you want to reject?

The book XI_hyperion linked to might be a good place to start.

As for condemnation by the UN, what did you think Durban was, where the US and Israel walked out?

The UN Charter proclaims the equality of nations large and small. In no case is this principle flouted more than in Israel's. It is a little-known fact that Israel is the only UN member that is refused full membership in any one of the UN's five regional groups. Without a group affiliation, a nation cannot put forward its own nationals for election to most UN bodies. As things stand, Israel can't be elected to the Commission on Human Rights or the Security Council.

In the beginning of the year 2001, in the first four months alone, there were six human rights "mandates" established by the UN to critique Israel (there are 17 others for the entire rest of the world).

The same attitude is on display in all UN fora. At the 2000 UN Commission on Human Rights, for example, five resolutions condemning Israel were adopted. The result was to give yet another platform for venting hatred, with the Sudanese lecturing the Israelis on "genocide," the Libyans preaching about "repression," and the Iranians on "ethnic cleansing."

Um. Pot, Kettle, black, if it was justified at all- I contend that it wasn't.

In the 1999 General Assembly, 19 resolutions were passed criticizing only Israel. According to the General Assembly, Israel is solely responsible for the area's "suffering," "daily human rights violations," "hostility" and "dismal lives." The language of these resolutions prejudges all the political claims:
Palestinians own Jerusalem.

Syria owns the water.

Millions of Palestinian refugees have the right to return to "their homes and former places of residence."

Not a word is said about the responsibility of others.

No mention of Arab governments that have rejected the existence of the state of Israel from its inception.

No mention of decades of anti-Semitism in textbooks, religious centres or state-controlled media.

Not a word about parents who deliberately put their children on the front lines.

These inflammatory resolutions make a negotiated solution less likely.

You should find it hard to reject my use of the word "regular" to describe these motions when year after year, they are introduced in such volume.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...

These inflammatory resolutions make a negotiated solution less likely.

...

It is not the resolutions, it is the hate mongering on both sides.

But to stay on topic, Israel does not have the right to operate in other countries, killing people. No matter if they are guilty or not, if they are in an affiliated country, Israel could still cooperate with the local police/judicial system/intelligence.

[suhail]

Mossad is the U.S.'s puppet master.

[suhail]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Millions of Palestinian refugees have the right to return to "their homes and former places of residence."

That is the biggest hunkashit I've ever heard on these threads.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by suhail:
That is the biggest hunkashit I've ever heard on these threads.

vmarks is a very well spoken person... notice how the word "safely" isn't remotely mention/implied etc.


Until both sides (governments) decide that they must tolerate each other... There will be no peace.

Right now, the goal is to start a world war, to get others involved. Since right now, most don't want to be involved in this mess. Nobody wants to consider the middle ground. It's the extremes they fight for. Something no outside country wants to deal with.

And as I've now said a million +1 times:

The people suffer.

[itai195]

Originally posted by suhail:
That is the biggest hunkashit I've ever heard on these threads.

Did you read his whole post, or did you just pick out a line that interested you?

[Hugi]

Both Palestinians and Israelis, are guilty of incredible evil in this war, but I do believe the Israeli government has much more power than the Palestinians to put an end to the abomination. Aren't Israel's murders centrally controlled by it's government, while Palestinian attacks are conducted by loosely knit bands of criminals that the Palestinian "government" has little or no control over?

As for the UN, it seems that it's got a millstone chained to it's neck.

Anyway, something must happen _now_. There's an alarming trend emerging. Most people don't differentiate between jews, Israelis and the actions of the Israeli government and I often hear people say ugly things like "those damn jews". I hope the Israeli nation will give headway to a more peaceful government in the coming elections. It must - for it's own good.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by hugi:
Both Palestinians and Israelis, are guilty of incredible evil in this war, but I do believe the Israeli government has much more power than the Palestinians to put an end to the abomination. Aren't Israel's murders centrally controlled by it's government, while Palestinian attacks are conducted by loosely knit bands of criminals that the Palestinian "government" has little or no control over?

As for the UN, it seems that it's got a millstone chained to it's neck.

Anyway, something must happen _now_. There's an alarming trend emerging. Most people don't differentiate between jews, Israelis and the actions of the Israeli government and I often hear people say ugly things like "those damn jews". I hope the Israeli nation will give headway to a more peaceful government in the coming elections. It must - for it's own good.

That's a good point... but as long as the Israeli government holds the idea that they will cleanse the region, and can do no wrong... nothing will happen.

What they should do is appeal to the UN to have a peacekeeping force come in and clean up a bit.... And help organize a restructured palestinian government.... But as of yet, the Israeli's hate the UN, despite the UN's role in it's creation, and refuse to all the palistinians to restructure and attempt to get rid of the corruption.

[itai195]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That's a good point... but as long as the Israeli government holds the idea that they will cleanse the region, and can do no wrong... nothing will happen.

???

[Face Ache]

White House Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer
Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:30 PM

Mokhiber: Ari, UPI reported last week that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel has given the green light to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, to engage in targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries. The report says that Mossad has in the past engaged in assassinations in Belgium, Norway, and other European countries, but never in the United States. Is the administration aware of this new Israeli policy and has the administration agreed to it?

Ari Fleischer: That's the first I've heard of it, so I have no comment to offer on it.

Mokhiber: Could we get comment from you?

Ari Fleischer: I'll see if there is something on it.

Mokhiber: You and the President have repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. The biggest such attack was in Halabja in March 1988, where some 6,800 Kurds were killed. Last week, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, Joost Hiltermann writes that while it was Iraq that carried out the attack, the United States at the time, fully aware that it was Iraq, accused Iran. This was apparently part of the U.S. tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees. Sensing he had carte blanche, Saddam escalated his resort to gas warfare -- graduating to ever more lethal agents. So, you and the President have said that Saddam has repeatedly gassed his own people. Why do you leave out the part that the United States in effect gave Saddam the green light?

Ari Fleischer: Russell, I speak for President George W. Bush in the year 2003. If you have a question about statements that were purportedly made by the administration in 1988, you need to address those somewhere other than this White House. I can't speak for that. I don't know if it is accurate, inaccurate, but you have all the means to ask those questions yourself.

Seems like we knew about it before the Whitehouse did.

Hmmm.

[voodoo]

Ari Fleisher. He is a *special* person.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by hugi:
Both Palestinians and Israelis, are guilty of incredible evil in this war, but I do believe the Israeli government has much more power than the Palestinians to put an end to the abomination. Aren't Israel's murders centrally controlled by it's government, while Palestinian attacks are conducted by loosely knit bands of criminals that the Palestinian "government" has little or no control over?

There's a difference between what the Israelis and Palestinians are doing.

The Israelis target terrorists. (Yes, sometimes innocent people are accidentally killed.)

The Palestinians target innocent civilians. Its government has plenty of control over what is going on. One group of suicide bombers, Al Aqsa, is part of Arafat's PLO. The rest have listened when Arafat has told them to stop.

Calling for peace in English and screaming death to Israel in Arabic does not make Arafat a peace loving man.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Thrax:
There's a difference between what the Israelis and Palestinians are doing.

The Israelis target terrorists. (Yes, sometimes innocent people are accidentally killed.)

The Palestinians target innocent civilians. Its government has plenty of control over what is going on. One group of suicide bombers, Al Aqsa, is part of Arafat's PLO. The rest have listened when Arafat has told them to stop.

Calling for peace in English and screaming death to Israel in Arabic does not make Arafat a peace loving man.

Nope, there is no difference: both sides fund terrorism, the Israeli version is just more high tech, but does the same thing. The Israeli suppress the Palestinian people, force them to live under worst conditions (no work, no medical systems, etc.). New settlements begin to emerge in formerly Palestinian territory. It's bologni tactics -- bit by bit. The Palestinians try to fight back (with the wrong measures) -- violence. Violence against violence.
Prohibiting people to use certain kinds of roads to get to the hospital is also a form of violence.

Because I don't believe in equality of unjustice, both forms of violence are no better than the other. Israel can't win that war, so do the Palestinians. Unless one of them completely cleanses the region from the other one which would be the worst case scenario.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Nope, there is no difference: both sides fund terrorism, the Israeli version is just more high tech, but does the same thing. The Israeli suppress the Palestinian people, force them to live under worst conditions (no work, no medical systems, etc.). New settlements begin to emerge in formerly Palestinian territory. It's bologni tactics -- bit by bit. The Palestinians try to fight back (with the wrong measures) -- violence. Violence against violence.
Prohibiting people to use certain kinds of roads to get to the hospital is also a form of violence.

Because I don't believe in equality of unjustice, both forms of violence are no better than the other. Israel can't win that war, so do the Palestinians. Unless one of them completely cleanses the region from the other one which would be the worst case scenario.

And as soon as the Palestinians decide to stop killing innocent Israelis, this will end.

Removing settlements now will look like rewarding terrorism. (Yes, it should be done at some point.) Ambulences are not allowed on certain roads because they have been used to transport terrorists.

The Israelis tried to negotiate with the PLO; it turned out to be a lost cause. You do not negotiate with people who say different things in different languages.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Thrax:
There's a difference between what the Israelis and Palestinians are doing.

The Israelis target terrorists. (Yes, sometimes innocent people are accidentally killed.)

Oh piss off. The IDF shoots kids in the head deliberately.

This is down and dirty tit-for-tat.

You seem biased.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Oh piss off. The IDF shoots kids in the head deliberately.

Proof that you shouldn't throw rocks at people with guns.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Thrax:
Proof that you shouldn't throw rocks at people with guns.

This comment seems beyond cynical to me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Thrax:
And as soon as the Palestinians decide to stop killing innocent Israelis, this will end.

Removing settlements now will look like rewarding terrorism. (Yes, it should be done at some point.) Ambulences are not allowed on certain roads because they have been used to transport terrorists.

The Israelis tried to negotiate with the PLO; it turned out to be a lost cause. You do not negotiate with people who say different things in different languages.

In the near term it might look like "getting something for terrorism". But this isn't the whole truth. They are trying to get back what has been taken from them.
From the Palestinians' point of view, they are struggling for freedom. The Israelis are like the British and the Palestinians want a new Tea Party.

If Israel doesn't acknowledge that, there will never be peace. Right now, on both sides, the conservatives, ultra-conservatives and nationalists are strengthened. On both sides, those political forces want to force the other one out of "their" territory. And I am more afraid of the Israeli extremists, because they have much more potential (to kill).

A few important facts of history:

1. Originally, there was no Israel, just Palestine (British protectorate).

2. Jewish terrorists forced the British out of the country using the exact same techniques as the Palestinians do now (bombing of King David Hotel in 1947, 96 killed).

3. Israel has annected Palestinian territory bit by bit, building settlements everywhere.

A few facts of the present:

1. Neither side can get rid of the other, except if there is another genocide (and I sure don't want that).

2. Hardliners (on both sides) will be strong in the short term, but they lack (realistic) ideas about how to solve that problem (put a fence around it and cage yourself in is not a solution).


And now a few predictions of mine about the future:

1. Economic development in the Palestinian territory will stabilize the political situation in the Middle East.

2. Only moderates are able to reach a long-term agreement.

3. Founding an independent Palestinian state is a prerequisite for peace. Its right of self determination must be respected by Israel.

4. A union of states is probable and IMHO the best solution for a long-lasting peace (similar to the Serbian and Montenegro model).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Thrax:
And as soon as the Palestinians decide to stop killing innocent Israelis, this will end.

Removing settlements now will look like rewarding terrorism. (Yes, it should be done at some point.) Ambulences are not allowed on certain roads because they have been used to transport terrorists.

The Israelis tried to negotiate with the PLO; it turned out to be a lost cause. You do not negotiate with people who say different things in different languages.

Um... Every time the killing stops for a period, Israel refuses to negotiate... then when it resumes, they say it needs to stop first.

I don't think using US weapons makes it ok to do...

Killing someone for religion is killing regardless.

What Israel should be doing is arresting, and having UN intervention to help carry out that task.

Killing and saying "that was a building full of terrorists' is a bit suspicious, especially when done hundreds of times... Especially when done in refugee camps....

Why is Israel so against UN monitoring? If they are really doing what they claim to (100% defense) it would create more backing for them. Instead, they refuse monitoring, and call anyone who questions them anti-semites.

It's just creating tension.

BTW:

OreoCookie has some good points too.