idrankwhat

Source: (yes I know its wiki)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas How, exactly, is there ever going to be peace between these 2 groups of people (Hamas, and Isrial) when ones own "mission", as it were, is to completely take over the other's country? I hate to say it, but this looks like a case of there will only be peace when one or the other group is completely wiped out. Wiki "Zionism" while you're at it. It's not just one party whose mission statement is to "take over the other's country." But thankfully, "Hamas" does not equal "Palestinian" and "Zionist" does not equal "Israeli". So it's not completely hopeless. Kind of hard to sell that notion at the moment though.

I meant your link to the other thread. you are assuming many things that were hardly negotiated at all and look at the first step out of many that would have ended with 91% of the west bank, all of Gaza and the rest in land swaps as the palestinian state. the main reason for the failure of camp david was the right of return and Arafat's refusal to stop terrorism. looking at Gaza and the amount of explosive smuggled into it, do you really think it would have been a good idea to let a terror infested PA full control of the borders right away? O You're right, Israel and Clinton blamed the failure on Arafat's right of return demands. And admittedly that's a sticky subject that remains, I don't know how that will eventually be dealt with. But that aside, that was not the only problem. What I described was a brief but accurate description of the proposal. It basically came down to, "move on to these four reservations, and although Israel will be incomplete control of your lives, if we feel like it, you might get your own "state" in 15-25 years, still surrounded by Israeli settlements. I wouldn't sign it, and I wouldn't expect you to either. And anyone with any knowledge of Native American history would probably be able to explain the likely end result.

we'll do is as many times as you keep bringing up the same ridiculus claims I didn't count, but I'm pretty sure that most of these threads were started by Darius and you, so don't complain when I'm forced to refute the same repetitive things over and over again... Ridiculous claims? Refute? Ok, then to clarify, could you answer a question for me? Do you think that three non contiguous regions (meaning internal travel subject to the IDF's approval), bisected by a road from Jerusalem to the Jordan River (a corridor that Palestinians may not cross), completely surrounded by the IDF and Israeli settlements, airspace controlled by Israel, ingress/egress, controlled by Israel, electromagnetic spectrum controlled by Israel, import/export controlled by Israel, etc., is a viable and independent Palestinian state in the West Bank?

How many times will we come full circle before we notice that we're seeing the same foot prints? I'm taking the easy way out tonight. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2875825;search_string=positive%20steps;#2875825

They have the might, we've insured that. They also have the right to exist. But do they have the right to expand their borders and occupy their neighbors land, maintaining a concentration camp in one area and using the military to create a second class citizenry in the other? The latter seems to be what the US and Israel has in mind. Remember, the 2000 proposal that Arafat turned down basically created three reservations in the West Bank. That's not a sovereign, contiguous state. There needs to be a fair solution. Agreed, but is giving in to prisoner status and oppressed second class a fair requirement for "peace"? It needs to be fair. Even Ori seems to realize that, at least in the West Bank. (Which I find interesting. He's more realistic and fair minded toward the Palestinians than most Israel supporters that I know here in the US).

Extremist dialog always ruins any chance for a rational exchange. I said earlier that a strong leadership shouldn't allow the actions of fanatics to derail the process. I'm trying to decide if this applies to SC as well

no, it amounts to : every time we've tried, they tried to blow up the border crossings. simple as that. what reason do they have to blow up the crossings that supply food to Gaza? having a rough time is a result of war, that is not collective punishment. civilians getting hurt because rockets are fired from their back yards is a violation of international law. by those who use them as human shields. The conversation is regressing. Any reply would be to rehash the rehashed. Good luck. They reap what they sow. You reap what you sow.

a blockade that had one goal only. stop the endless flow of explosives into Gaza. there is nothing illegal about it. the government in Gaza is in a state of war with Israel. most countries would have cut power and supplies completely (war, remember?) but Israel didn't. Once more, collective punishment violates international law and many many rockets and tons of explosives. I dont' know. I don't know the specifics of the relationship between our administration, Israel, Fatah and Egypt with regard to Rafah. I know they brokered the deal and that EUBAM (European Union Border Assistance Mission Rafah) pulled out when Hamas took over and their isolation began. My guess is that the US and Israel's influence on Egypt plays a strong role in the status of that crossing. But it sounds like Egypt is getting a lot of pressure. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jIsR7XGd6ASs42NuRNMH_kas52XA actions speak louder than words. let's start with accepting previous treaties and not blowing up the same border crossings you want Israel to open (which they have several times) Israel has talked with (arguably) ex-terrorists like the PLO. This basically amounts to "it's never worked before so why try?". That approach is guaranteed to get you nowhere. The idea of halting aid to Israel is to force the parties to talk to each other. If you really want peace, you take every opportunity to work towards it. If you're not finished grabbing land, then you use every excuse to miss those opportunities. Collective punishment violates international law.

You won't have peace until both sides admit their culpability and take serious efforts to stabilize the situation. And the effort has to be serious enough to not let minor acts of violence from either side to derail the process, because that's going to happen. The reason that I put the onus on Israel, and the US for that matter, is that they/we are the most powerful participants. Of course today's events did nothing to help. The UN holds a vote on a cease fire agreement. The vote is in favor 14:0, with the US abstaining, even though Rice said the US fully supports it.

do you know that the Palestinians have been getting more per-capita aid than anyone else in the world? would you stop that too? Not right away. They're on the wrong side of an illegal blockade. I believe Israel would welcome this. IF they are effective. the ones in Lebanon have been doing nothing and often helping Hezbollah. You forgot to mention that they were also documenting the daily Israeli mock bombing missions into Lebanon before the IDF blew up their outpost. Two can play the cherry picking of facts game but neither tells the whole story. It was a full blown humanitarian crisis after Israel implemented a full blockade. The border was breached so that people (more aptly "prisoners") could get food and supplies. At least Egypt realized the severity of the situation and allowed the relief. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the extent of peacekeeper presence in the form of remote video monitoring by the UN and Israel? maybe valid when speaking about the PA. how can you even mention the words "agrrement" when Hamas openly declares that it will not respect any treaty signed by the PA in the past? But they also declared that they could live in peace, side by side, with Israel, last April after meeting with Carter. Admittedly, their description of the circumstances was weird and difficult to understand but the general idea was "living side by side in peace". That was another missed opportunity. A strong and even remotely interested leadership would have taken advantage of that window of opportunity. And the difference between Hamas and Gazans needs to be recognized as well. Collective punishment is wrong. well i AM in my shoes and I never said that. I just know who we're dealing with here. Hamas (and to a lesser extent Arafat when he went back to violence in 2000) has caused more damage to the Palestinians than they did to Israel. IMO Arafat's leadership was a mixed bag. Good work along with corruption led to being ineffective in the long run. Of course having a tank outside your door limited his options during the last few years. Fatah was heading in the same direction. Many in Gaza saw the Fatah leadership enjoying the good life while the people suffered. That's why they got kicked out.

yeap. Which is why I think that we should deny Israel any of our financial aid until the blockade is lifted, settlement expansion is halted, international peacekeepers are allowed in to help, and Israel agrees to most if not all of the Geneva Initiative. That said, I'll have to admit, if I were in your shoes I don't know that I wouldn't be at the point where I just didn't care anymore. "Fuck 'em all, let them die". I hope not but it's entirely possible. But even if I felt that way it would still be wrong. That's why we need strong leadership to step in and make thoughtful decisions about what is right, what is humane and what is best for all parties in the long run.

no it's not. there is an (elected) government in Gaza who refuse the recognize treaties and openly declared war on Israel. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies here, regarding occupying power and collective punishment. How? How can they do anything when they rely on Israel for everything? It's like tying my dog to a tree and then beating him because he won't come when I call him. I can see that this is going to go nowhere. I see a person in proximity to war who has decided upon a certain degree of acceptable humanitarian suffering. I'm a person not in proximity to the war but who disagrees with all humanitarian suffering and who accepts the rules of war as they've been laid out. I complain when my country violates them just as loudly.

Sorry, but I'm not following. edited to add: Nevermind, I lost the flow of the thread for a second. Sorry.

first of all, once Israel pulled out of Gaza, it doesnt HAVE to provide them with anything. I'm sorry, but that statement is complete bullshit. Regardless of whether or not Israel has settlers in Gaza it is still the occupying power, and therefore, has the responsibility for the residents of Gaza. The blockade is against international law, as is collective punishment. Israel controls the territorial waters, land borders (with one tiny exception), the airspace, the electromagnetic spectrum, power, water, import and export of all goods, customs, tax revenues. Gazans rely on Israel for everything they need to survive. To say that Israel has no responsibility for the people of Gaza is simply ridiculous, as is the notion that 1.3 million people can be fed, supplied with medicine and run trade through smuggling tunnels. Actually simply ridiculous is an understatement.

Perspective That does not make my statement untrue. I stumbled across this one today and I thought I'd share it with you in case you missed it. Meanwhile, Amnesty International accused both sides of using civilians as human shields. "Israeli soldiers have entered and taken up positions in a number of Palestinian homes, forcing families to stay in a ground floor room while they use the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position," it said in a statement. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817926.stm

yes. Lebanon is a sovereign country. It has signed the cease fire agreement in 2006, promising that its army will take control of southern Lebanon (together with UN troops) so Hezbollah and the others would not be able to continue doing what caused the 2006 war (and yes, the killing and kidnapping of soldiers across the border and rocket attacks then were unprovoked as well). I dont care who fired these rockets. they came from a sovereign country's land and the goverenment there is responsible. Whether or not a government is responsible for responding to the attacks is a separate issue from provocation. And I take issue with the half of the story you referenced regarding the war 2 years ago but that's already been expressed in this forum.

a matter of opinion. And that's why there's a problem. And the West bank separation issue may not be simply race based, however it does meet the definition of apartheid when taken out of a South African context.

maybe Darius can justify this unprovoked attack from Lebanon? I'm not trying to justify the attack but if it came from Palestinians in Lebanon should it be considered "unprovoked"? Considering the heavy handed nature of the Israeli incursion into Gaza over the last couple of weeks, I think that it's awfully disingenuous to label attacks on Israel as "unprovoked". This goes to the heart of the problem that I have with this conflict. Israel facilitates a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza after it pulls its settlers out and Hamas is elected. It continues the land grab in the West Bank (directly in opposition to International law and official US policy). The IDF turns a mostly blind eye to the settler violence against the WB Palestinians and is frequently a participant in such violence. Israel cripples both Gaza and West Bank agriculture and trade operations and occasionally steals financial aid meant for the Palestinians. And the IDF runs daily mock air raids over Lebanon, although I'm not certain that the last one is any longer a valid claim over the last year or so. In light of all that, the notion that any action against Israel could be considered "unprovoked" just simply makes no sense to me, regardless of how many times it's portrayed as such here in the US media. And again, for all of you with binary vision, I DO NOT approve of Hamas' tactics. My point is and has been that Israel is NOT an innocent victim. Both parties need to be held accountable. When we here in the US supply $billions in aid per year, espouse an official policy against certain Israeli actions, and then refuse to hold them accountable for breaching that policy, then I think we are doing nothing more than fanning the fires of the conflict. Humanitarian crisis aside, it's counterproductive for Israel's as well as our own security.

yes, in the west bank, roads leading to israeli villages illegal Israeli settlements. just like the roads to palestinian towns and the town itself is closed for me. and again, its not jewish or not jewish, its Israeli citizens settlers Vs. palestinians. Above edited for clarification.

Yes, deliberately. There's plenty of evidence available for an open mind. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who isn't paying attention. And you accuse me of selective reading? I have never considered Hamas to be innocent victims. I said that I UNDERSTAND why they might be pissed off though because I've done enough research to see what the conditions are like in Gaza. Hamas violates international law and the laws of war. Israel violates international law and the laws of war. Look into it for yourself and you just might be surprised at what you find.

I suppose most of those stories simply show the IDF's tolerance for "collateral damage". "On 1 Jan. '09, the Israeli army killed four women and eleven children when it bombed the house of Nizar Rayan, a senior Hamas official, in the Jabalya refugee camp." But your two assertions have been debunked previously with testimony, photo, and video to support it. I don't really want to dig them up more examples because I don't want to start a tit for tat exchange. It's wrong when either side does it, and they both do.

Perspective

Yes it does. But you prefer not to recognize the UN or Geneva Conventions so......I guess the argument ends there. I understand that proximity to violence can have an affect on what is considered acceptable suffering. And I do commend you for your willingness to look at the larger picture, as evidenced by your comments regarding Hebron. I didn't like our 43rd President, I wasn't crazy about how the election was concluded and I didn't want an extremist running my country. But I never considered locking him in Texas with no food and water as an option (ask me again in two weeks though and you'll likely get a different answer). Hamas won a legitimate election. At that point someone needed to step in and acknowledge their leadership position and urge them to sit at the table and give them the respect that the position demands. Instead we decided to recognize the loser of the election as the leader and lock up the winner in a concentration camp. We didn't even give them ONE STINKIN' DAY to see how they would respond before we began to marginalize them and start kidnapping their leaders. I have no idea how Hamas would have responded to an extended hand at a peace talk. Maybe they would have been willing to negotiate, maybe they would have started lobbing rockets. I don't know, but I wish they had been given the chance. You put the ball in their court by leading by example and doing the right thing. If they fuck up after that, THEN it's their fault. As I said before, I don't condone their launching of rockets into Israel, but I understand why they might be pissed off.

The link I posted earlier should help answer the question. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7191359.stm Yes, Israel pulled their settlers and their troops out of Gaza but then it was turned into a concentration camp that was recognized (by most) as a serious humanitarian crisis prior to December. I can easily understand how most Americans were unaware due to our "liberal media" dropping the ball on this one, again. I don't agree with Hamas' tactics, and I really think that there was a small window of opportunity that was missed right after their election. IMO, there was a small chance to start some constructive dialog at that moment. We needed an honest broker to step in but we chose to shut them out completely. (It's certainly not the first time that the US has had problems with a democratically elected leadership). Two more weeks. Two more weeks. Let's hope we don't get another "hypocrite in chief". (which means that we need to keep Hillary out of it)

Tip: He's not the President yet. I'm only asking #44 to try, which would be in stark contrast to #43. Read that article yet?