I have a simple question for Palestinian apologists: With no change in the Palestinian political/militant community, how would a Palestinian government deal with the terror groups after it has gotten everything it wanted from the Israeli gov't? Are they expected to simply disband, merge with the Palestinian government, or used as a chained dog only to be leashed (again) when Israel comes? What would happen to the terror groups (that can't be done today)?
What happened with the Israeli terror groups after the formation of the state? They were dealt with, and Ben Gurion had the advantage in that he had a state with which to generate support and legitimacy to dismantly the outside groups.
I think I did. Yes they would be disbanded. Any situation that resulted in a peace agreement would bring along with it political changes that would allow such a change or said peace agrement would never work. Thier can not be a state with independant military forces taking independant action.
BTW: I don't believe thier should be a "Palestinian state" or for that matter a "Jewish state"
I find the idea of a state exclusively for one religious or ethnic group to be incompatible with the modern world and ultimately unsustainable. I find no good arguments to give either people thier "own state" particularly as any two states that arise would be heavily interconnected econmically, strategically, etc. I think they should be integrated into one state, no one should be allowed to return either Jew or Arab for at least 20 years, and let the democratic process take effect.
As to your question about armoring and the difference between taking out a Tank and taking out a Suburban it is not really a question about whether they can, but as to the how and the why.
A Merkava MK III or IV of the types destroyed in the current conflict are not armored to the Level II, III, IV etc standards that protected civillian vehicles are. The different levels indicate protection from varying degrees of threat from handgun rounds, rifle, all the way up to RPG and grenades. Not much more than that, as the weight fo the vehicle would make it impractical. A Merkava is designed to witstand tank rounds both SABOT, and HEAT, as well as ATGM. They are also theoretically designed to provide crew protection in the case of impact with an anti-tank mine.
The ones that were destroyed were destroyed by massive home made bombs usually packed in water heaters and building boilers which were buried in the roadway. The tanks were destroyed were hit in thier weakest point by this massive explosion, the overpressure caused turret seperation and killed the crews. Very characteristic. These bombs origins were quickly traced to the workshops they came from and the builders made credible claims very quickly. Destroying and Israeli tank is something a Palesitinian millitant wants to take credit for. This has not happened yet in any serious way which is unusual. Someone doesn't want to to be identified even organizationally if not indiviudally and I find that curious as it is uncharacteristic.
We have yet to see what sort of explosive device was used in this incident. The size of the crater I saw and the condition of one of the vehicles indicate that it was powerful...but a Level V armored vehicle would not generally stand up to even a land mine hitting it from the undercairrage without death or severe injury to the occupants. I would need to see more pictures to be sure. We need more evidence to know what exactly happened here.
From what you just said, then, the Palestinians should've carried out wholesale arrests against militants after the Oslo Agreement was signed. Oh, that's right, they did do that. Then they released them again when relations soured with Israel. Hence, the militants were on a perpetual leash. Furthermore, the terror groups have their own humanitarian service, which should've gone away when Oslo was signed, but it didn't. Last, but not least, seeing that the Palestinians want to avert an intercenine conflict at all cost, seeing that the terror groups go quietly into the night is a pipe dream. If anything, it should hasten the inevitable civil war. Don't you agree? If so, why can't this civil war be brought further up (to date) so they can clean the mess sooner rather than later? Would the Palestinian Liberation Organization be trying to fight a civil war from a position of strength so as not to lose or are they too close to terror to fight against it without them losing as well? Please answer this.
Why would they fight each other when they are still at war with Israel? That would be stupid. The PA has no ability to fight Israel on its own. Without terror their would be no negotiation. Notice, thier was no inkling of a negotiation with the Palestinians (as opposed to sorrounding Arab states) until the 1st intifada and the unsuccessfull efforts to crush it. Like it or not, they wont give up thier only weapon unless they all of a sudden go the Ghandi route which I find unlikely unless a Ghandi/MLK figure arises and that is a very very rare thing indeed. Far more people willing to pick up the gun than the branch of righteousness. Of course thier are many in this forum who constantly harp on the virtues of strength and conflict as opposed to the weak appeasment they see as inherent in diplomacy. You should be gratefule. The Palestinian militants are the ultimate right wingers.
I don't believe an all out civil war is inevitable. You seem to, and I think you personally would like to see that..but I don't see it as inevitable. The Jews haven't had one yet and they are almost as divided.
So, if terror is their "only weapon" against Israel, then peace is almost impossible because Israel (and the United States) does not negotiate with terrorists. But let's say it is possible. If so, then the Palestinian leadership is either leasing the terrorist organizations for its proxy-war against Israel or there is a conflagration of multiple groups fighting against Israel. Also, seeing that the terrorists have their paymasters in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, how can the Palestian leadership fold them into the gov't without either making massive concessions or fighting a civil war? In the end, the Palestinian Authority may think it has the terror groups on a leash, but the other end of the leash may be farther afield, hence making it much harder to rein them in (as you claim did happen with Jewish "terror groups" 60 years ago). Your opinion?
i think what many people are forgetting are the historical credentials of "arafat the diplomat".
first off his real name is Mohammed Abder Rauf Arafat al-Kudwa al-Husseini. if your a history buff it may sound familiar, arafat is the nephew and protege of Haj Amin Muhammad al-Husseini, the "Grand Mufti" of Jerusalem.
he began his "diplomatic career" ordering american diplomats killed, the same for israeli athletes, and perfected airplane hijacking to an artform.
arafat is not a "palestinian" but an egyptian. born in cairo in 1929.
his arabic is even "egyptian" there are nuances in different regions and nations. much like the difference in how english is spoken in england, the northern and southern US, australia, etc.
arafat and the PLO tried to sieze control in jordan in 1968. being handily defeated by the hashemites he now concentrates more on "the jewish problem".
first off his real name is Mohammed Abder Rauf Arafat al-Kudwa al-Husseini. if your a history buff it may sound familiar, arafat is the nephew and protege of Haj Amin Muhammad al-Husseini, the "Grand Mufti" of Jerusalem.
he began his "diplomatic career" ordering american diplomats killed, the same for israeli athletes, and perfected airplane hijacking to an artform.
arafat is not a "palestinian" but an egyptian. born in cairo in 1929.
his arabic is even "egyptian" there are nuances in different regions and nations. much like the difference in how english is spoken in england, the northern and southern US, australia, etc.
arafat and the PLO tried to sieze control in jordan in 1968. being handily defeated by the hashemites he now concentrates more on "the jewish problem".
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
First, Israel is not "a state exclusively for one religious or ethnic group". A future Palestinian state? Who knows what form that would take? Second, a single-state solution might have been viable 55 years ago, but today? Maybe you offer up the single-state solution because you feel that the Palestinian statehood these terrorists claim to be fighting for will not actually lead to peace?
As for the Merkava question, that was actually rhetorical (don't ask why I insisted that you answer it). I am aware of the differences between a tank and an armored Suburban. The question was asked to illustrate the point that the technical argument that this must have been carried out by a foreign hand doesn't hold water. Those poor, unsophistacted Palestinians are quite capable.
As for motive, I agree - it seems very unlikely that the PA or any of the mainstream militant groups would have any reason or desire to escalate this conflict to include Americans, and I also agree with your view that a direct military union between Israel and the U.S. would be Bin Laden's "wet dream", but that doesn't rule out the possibility of some fringe Palestinian group (with or without foreign influence) being responsible.
And I really don't know where you got that "I hate Palestinians, they are all nuts and out to kill us". I don't think I've ever said anything to that effect, and I'm probably about as centrist as you are likely to find on what is clearly a very divisive and polarizing issue.
Well then we are generally in agreement. I never ruled out the possibility that it was some fringe group that no one has ever heard of or that hasn't been taken seriously up until this point. Reports coming in now indicate that arrests are being made by the PA of members of just such a fringe group. I however find it hard to believe that thier is not any foriegn influence in this turn of events. I guess we will find out once the interrogations are done.
Originally posted by: sward666
Originally posted by: mrCide
I am somewhat aware of a Jewish population in Israel, but thanks for the info.
Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", they have laws that are designed to retain the "Jewish carachter" of Israel. That to me screams a state exclusively for one religious group. Just becuase thier are quite a few Arabs in Israel doesn't make it any less the "Jewish state". I don't feel a state like that can survive in the modern world.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
"Exclusively" is a strong word. Non-Jews vote in Israel. Non-Jews hold public office in Israel. Non-Jews own land in Israel. Non-Jews hold citizenship in Israel.Originally posted by: sward666
Originally posted by: mrCide
I am somewhat aware of a Jewish population in Israel, but thanks for the info.
Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", they have laws that are designed to retain the "Jewish carachter" of Israel. That to me screams a state exclusively for one religious group. Just becuase thier are quite a few Arabs in Israel doesn't make it any less the "Jewish state". I don't feel a state like that can survive in the modern world.
Is Israel a Jewish state? Duh. Exclusively for Jews? No. Certainly to a far lesser extent than its neighbors are "exclusively for Arabs."
In a more perfect world, perhaps such a state would not be necessary. This world is far from perfect, isn't it?
Originally posted by: sward666
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
"Exclusively" is a strong word. Non-Jews vote in Israel. Non-Jews hold public office in Israel. Non-Jews own land in Israel. Non-Jews hold citizenship in Israel.Originally posted by: sward666
Originally posted by: mrCide
I am somewhat aware of a Jewish population in Israel, but thanks for the info.
Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", they have laws that are designed to retain the "Jewish carachter" of Israel. That to me screams a state exclusively for one religious group. Just becuase thier are quite a few Arabs in Israel doesn't make it any less the "Jewish state". I don't feel a state like that can survive in the modern world.
Is Israel a Jewish state? Duh. Exclusively for Jews? No. Certainly to a far lesser extent than its neighbors are "exclusively for Arabs."
In a more perfect world, perhaps such a state would not be necessary. This world is far from perfect, isn't it?
I guess we will see the limits of "exclusivity" and "inclusion" when the Arab population of Israel more than doubles in the next generation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter