Israel to Seperate from Palestinian Side

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.

Oh, it's all Arafat's fault? Whew I'm glad it's so simple.
Israel's shift away from negotiation and unilateral action is a direct result of the PLO failing to stop the terrorist attacks. It's funny how quickly people forget that Israel was willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted and Arafat stood up and told them to go to hell and then did nothing as the 2000 intifada started. 10,000+ Israel civillians have died by direct attacks on them. If this was happening to America there would be 3 million Palestinians stored in Gitmo.
You're one-sided stance is appalling. You are spewing forth propaganda which suggests Israel has done nothing but promote peace during the Oslo peace process, while the Palestinians have been trying to derail it consistently. I'm sorry to rain on your parade of Israel glorification, but I will present you with a comprehensive article which details the failure of Oslo based on both Palestinian and Israeli actions. *GASP* Do I mean Israel caused the failure of Oslo as well as the Palestinians? Why yes of course!

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/persp5_isr-pal_1.htm
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: lozina<br.
You're one-sided stance is appalling. You are spewing forth propaganda which suggests Israel has done nothing but promote peace during the Oslo peace process, while the Palestinians have been trying to derail it consistently. I'm sorry to rain on your parade of Israel glorification, but I will present you with a comprehensive article which details the failure of Oslo based on both Palestinian and Israeli actions. *GASP* Do I mean Israel caused the failure of Oslo as well as the Palestinians? Why yes of course!

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/persp5_isr-pal_1.htm
My stance is not one-sided from my perspective. I take a rather hard line against a state that isn't even willing to negotiate. Although the US and Israel both made mistakes at Oslo the simple fact is that Arafat refused to even negotiate. He didn't bring a single plan to the table and refused to even counter-offer. In my part of the world that is called stuborn and we don't have any simapathy for people that are stubborn because they make their own beds.

As has been said this wall will end the terrorism. The PLO absolutely refused to make any concessions and as I said when the wall construction was announced that this would draw the final boundary and seperate the countries completely. A seperation that will destroy the Palestinian state before it's created because it's totatally depended on Israel economically. The PLO's refusal to even come to the table and stop the violence while they negotiate is their undoing. Their attempts to force Israel through the use of violence is going to have the consequences that have long been predicted.

I've said it a million times, if the PLO and Hamas took a lesson from Ghandi they could have shamed Israel into conceeding to almost all their demands. Violence will never succeed in manipulating the Israelis because they will do the opposite to prove it has no effect on them.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: lozina<br.
You're one-sided stance is appalling. You are spewing forth propaganda which suggests Israel has done nothing but promote peace during the Oslo peace process, while the Palestinians have been trying to derail it consistently. I'm sorry to rain on your parade of Israel glorification, but I will present you with a comprehensive article which details the failure of Oslo based on both Palestinian and Israeli actions. *GASP* Do I mean Israel caused the failure of Oslo as well as the Palestinians? Why yes of course!

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/persp5_isr-pal_1.htm
My stance is not one-sided from my perspective. I take a rather hard line against a state that isn't even willing to negotiate. Although the US and Israel both made mistakes at Oslo the simple fact is that Arafat refused to even negotiate. He didn't bring a single plan to the table and refused to even counter-offer. In my part of the world that is called stuborn and we don't have any simapathy for people that are stubborn because they make their own beds.
Again with this Arafat is the root of all evil stuff *sigh* Yeah, you're not one sided, you're completely 'fair and balanced'.


I've said it a million times, if the PLO and Hamas took a lesson from Ghandi they could have shamed Israel into conceeding to almost all their demands. Violence will never succeed in manipulating the Israelis because they will do the opposite to prove it has no effect on them.
Yep, more 'fair and balanced'. It's only the Palestinains who are using violence to reach their goals, while the IDF passes out candy bars and teletubby dolls. Oh let me guess another thing, the Palestinians started all the violence too? And they forced Israel to occupy them, physically pulling IDF troops into their land and forcing them to bulldoze their homes and olive groves.

Great objective view there.

 

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Lozina,

Actually, it was the Palestinians who started the violence - back in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel, continuing through 1967 and to present day. Israel has the right to defend itself from a constant onslaught of suicide bombers and gunmen. Consider that the Arab states are funding the attack on Israel. Israel has responded accordingly. Your view is no more fair and balanced than the views that you critique.

"Yep, more 'fair and balanced'. It's only the Palestinains who are using violence to reach their goals, while the IDF passes out candy bars and teletubby dolls. Oh let me guess another thing, the Palestinians started all the violence too? And they forced Israel to occupy them, physically pulling IDF troops into their land and forcing them to bulldoze their homes and olive groves.

Great objective view there."

Well, at least you know how to use hyperbole. Unfortunately for you, it IS the Palestinians who are using violence to try and attain what they want. They kills and terrorize civilians (NOT MILITARY TARGETS), and then the IDF responds accordingly, but on their MILITARY TARGETS. Of course, you seem to advocate this terror, for some reason, though I cannot see why. Considering that the Fatah, PLO and Hamas are the strongest running forces in Palestine right now, I am astounded that people can support their "fight for freedom," which was already offered to them time and time again.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
Lozina,

Actually, it was the Palestinians who started the violence - back in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel, continuing through 1967 and to present day. Israel has the right to defend itself from a constant onslaught of suicide bombers and gunmen. Consider that the Arab states are funding the attack on Israel. Israel has responded accordingly. Your view is no more fair and balanced than the views that you critique.
Actually, two points, you state that in a matter-of-fact tone, but it's debatable who 'started the violence' back in '48. Many say the Israelis started terrorizing Palestinians form the get-go, but let's not waste more time with that.

Secondly, when you say 'arabs' attacked, you mean- what- ountries like Iraq, Jordan, Syria, who had national armies. Palestine did not have a national army, and the arabs were trampling over their (Palestinian) territory to get to Israel, much like Germans trampled over Belgium to get to France. Should France then occupy and annex Belgium?

Well, at least you know how to use hyperbole. Unfortunately for you, it IS the Palestinians who are using violence to try and attain what they want. They kills and terrorize civilians (NOT MILITARY TARGETS), and then the IDF responds accordingly, but on their MILITARY TARGETS. Of course, you seem to advocate this terror, for some reason, though I cannot see why. Considering that the Fatah, PLO and Hamas are the strongest running forces in Palestine right now, I am astounded that people can support their "fight for freedom," which was already offered to them time and time again.
You see a major difference? IDF fires a missile at a crowd of people and say their main target was a suspected terrorist. What if when Palestinians plant a bomb in a bus, they made a public statement such as "there was a suspected IDF member in the bus". Would that comfort you and make the bombing alright? Or when Israel bulldozes a house and say they were family members of a terrorist. Is that fair? And why is it always Israel who 'responds' to Palestinian terror and not Palestinian terror 'responding' to IDF aggression? Why is it always one-sided for you?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: lozina

Actually, two points, you state that in a matter-of-fact tone, but it's debatable who 'started the violence' back in '48. Many say the Israelis started terrorizing Palestinians form the get-go, but let's not waste more time with that.

Secondly, when you say 'arabs' attacked, you mean- what- ountries like Iraq, Jordan, Syria, who had national armies. Palestine did not have a national army, and the arabs were trampling over their (Palestinian) territory to get to Israel, much like Germans trampled over Belgium to get to France. Should France then occupy and annex Belgium?

As you stated, in '48 the Jordanian army went through the Palestinian assigned territory. Some Palestianians fled out of the way of the war.

Israel recovered and attacked the combined Arab armies on multiple fronts to recover original losses and occupy territory to secure a buffer for their original boundaries. Many Palestians fled from the Israelis advance into the neighboring countries. When Israel stopped their advance, many Palestians faced a choice of returning under Israel rule or staying in the Arab countries. The Arab countries did not want the Palestinians for political and economic reasons. This is what started the refugee camps. The Palestian organization/resistance did not really start up until after the '73 war. It was at this point that the Arab world may have realized that they would not be able to destroy Israel. this crushed the Palestinian dream of having their own country (Palestine).

The Arab countries started encouraging a guerilla war hoping that world opinion would encourage what they failed to do military. Agreed that the PLO can not attack Israel military, but what is the existing attacks accomplishing. Generating a cycle of retaliation of an eye-for-an-eye.

Until both sides are honestly committed to not having the complete slice of the pie and all outsiders stop trying to dictate conditions on/for either party, it will be up to Israel to handle the situation on her own.

Slapping each others face will not encourage cooperation. Neither side can walk away and keep face internal.

Economics reality will end up being the driving factor in solving the problem.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: lozina

Actually, two points, you state that in a matter-of-fact tone, but it's debatable who 'started the violence' back in '48. Many say the Israelis started terrorizing Palestinians form the get-go, but let's not waste more time with that.

Secondly, when you say 'arabs' attacked, you mean- what- ountries like Iraq, Jordan, Syria, who had national armies. Palestine did not have a national army, and the arabs were trampling over their (Palestinian) territory to get to Israel, much like Germans trampled over Belgium to get to France. Should France then occupy and annex Belgium?

As you stated, in '48 the Jordanian army went through the Palestinian assigned territory. Some Palestianians fled out of the way of the war.

Israel recovered and attacked the combined Arab armies on multiple fronts to recover original losses and occupy territory to secure a buffer for their original boundaries. Many Palestians fled from the Israelis advance into the neighboring countries. When Israel stopped their advance, many Palestians faced a choice of returning under Israel rule or staying in the Arab countries. The Arab countries did not want the Palestinians for political and economic reasons. This is what started the refugee camps. The Palestian organization/resistance did not really start up until after the '73 war. It was at this point that the Arab world may have realized that they would not be able to destroy Israel. this crushed the Palestinian dream of having their own country (Palestine).

The Arab countries started encouraging a guerilla war hoping that world opinion would encourage what they failed to do military. Agreed that the PLO can not attack Israel military, but what is the existing attacks accomplishing. Generating a cycle of retaliation of an eye-for-an-eye.

Until both sides are honestly committed to not having the complete slice of the pie and all outsiders stop trying to dictate conditions on/for either party, it will be up to Israel to handle the situation on her own.

Slapping each others face will not encourage cooperation. Neither side can walk away and keep face internal.

Economics reality will end up being the driving factor in solving the problem.
You're right about one thing: the Arabs didn't want the Palestinians assimilated into their country, not only for economic reasons but they could use them as a card against Israel in the future, whether the Palestinians liked it or not. But Israel didn not want them either, it would case a great 'demographic problem' for the 'one true Jewish state' to have a bunch of non-Jews as citizens. So these Palestinians are left in limbo, abandoned and disregarded. Their half of the 1948 UN resolution never materialized, building the cynicism and hopelessness in them which builds up to this day, which no doubt leads some of them to do the drastic suicide bombings in hopelessness and despair.

But I will disagree that not all outsiders should be removed from peace negotiations. I beleive it is absolutely essential. It is almost impossible to have two parties which have such inherent hatred towards eachother to come up with a reasonable peace treay on their own, there must be mediators, and UN peacekeeping forces sent in. Which brings up a good question: Why does Israel so firmly refuse to allow UN monitors and peacekeepers in the region? If they are so just and honorable as some here like to project, what do they have to hide? Surely these monitors would see just how barbaric and aggressive these Palestinains are, as some of you suggest, right?
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: lozina

But I will disagree that not all outsiders should be removed from peace negotiations. I beleive it is absolutely essential. It is almost impossible to have two parties which have such inherent hatred towards eachother to come up with a reasonable peace treay on their own, there must be mediators, and UN peacekeeping forces sent in. Which brings up a good question: Why does Israel so firmly refuse to allow UN monitors and peacekeepers in the region? If they are so just and honorable as some here like to project, what do they have to hide? Surely these monitors would see just how barbaric and aggressive these Palestinains are, as some of you suggest, right?
Israel's position regarding the lack of need for an international force was summed up in Peres's remarks at a press conference following the Security Council debate: "They don't need a protection force. The minute they will stop shooting, there won't be any need for protection. Israel has never initiated any act of violence, only reacted to it."
Successive Israeli governments have objected to UN involvement in the Administered Territories. There is a fear that a UN presence would create facts on the ground that would define borders and lead to internationally imposed solutions that do not take Israeli interests into account.

Moreover, such forces have proven impotent to prevent terrorist attacks in Lebanon and along Israel's northern border. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was often used as a shield by Hizballah and other anti-Israel forces. The devastating consequences of its presence between the warring forces was brought home during the Israeli Grapes of Wrath operation in 1996, when a stray Israeli shell hit a UNIFIL encampment, causing scores of deaths and diplomatic disaster.

The UN can also provide an opportunity for camouflage and subterfuge. The three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in October along the northern border were reportedly taken by surprise by Hizballah gunmen dressed in UN uniforms and driving a UN jeep.
When you are dealing with a group of terrorists that shuffle suicide bombers around in the back of ambulances they have reason to fear bombers dressing up like UN peacekeepers.

[edit]forgot the link[/edit]http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0009.htm
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: lozina



But I will disagree that not all outsiders should be removed from peace negotiations. I beleive it is absolutely essential. It is almost impossible to have two parties which have such inherent hatred towards eachother to come up with a reasonable peace treay on their own, there must be mediators, and UN peacekeeping forces sent in. Which brings up a good question: Why does Israel so firmly refuse to allow UN monitors and peacekeepers in the region? If they are so just and honorable as some here like to project, what do they have to hide? Surely these monitors would see just how barbaric and aggressive these Palestinains are, as some of you suggest, right?
As posted by: rahvin[/b]

Moreover, such forces have proven impotent to prevent terrorist attacks in Lebanon and along Israel's northern border. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was often used as a shield by Hizballah and other anti-Israel forces
The UN has shown themselves to be incapable to stopping anyone on there own and at many times seemed to aid the Arabs.

Also, with the UN many times politically attacking Israel (at the bequest of the Arabs) why should Israel trust them as a body.

The UN has never stepped in to defend Israel, only to protect the Arab nations from their (Arab) stupidity.

What will the UN involvement buy/benifit Israel. World opinion has never benifited Israel, just forced them to never solve a problem that has festered for many years and becomes more infected.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
The UN has shown themselves to be incapable to stopping anyone on there own and at many times seemed to aid the Arabs.

Also, with the UN many times politically attacking Israel (at the bequest of the Arabs) why should Israel trust them as a body.

The UN has never stepped in to defend Israel, only to protect the Arab nations from their (Arab) stupidity.

What will the UN involvement buy/benifit Israel. World opinion has never benifited Israel, just forced them to never solve a problem that has festered for many years and becomes more infected.
Oh this is a humorous spin- you do realize you're illigitimatizing the state of Israel with that criticism of the UN? And what's all this mumbo-jumbo about the UN being in bed with the Arabs?! Their resoutions are voted upon by countries accross the world, not a few Arabs! Are you suggesting the entire World is out to get Israel? Somehow all these countries are totally wrong, or perhaps conspiring against Israel? Some sort of global plot to destroy Israel, right? No, none of Israel's actions are criticizable, everything they do is just fine and dandy.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: lozina

But I will disagree that not all outsiders should be removed from peace negotiations. I beleive it is absolutely essential. It is almost impossible to have two parties which have such inherent hatred towards eachother to come up with a reasonable peace treay on their own, there must be mediators, and UN peacekeeping forces sent in. Which brings up a good question: Why does Israel so firmly refuse to allow UN monitors and peacekeepers in the region? If they are so just and honorable as some here like to project, what do they have to hide? Surely these monitors would see just how barbaric and aggressive these Palestinains are, as some of you suggest, right?
Israel's position regarding the lack of need for an international force was summed up in Peres's remarks at a press conference following the Security Council debate: "They don't need a protection force. The minute they will stop shooting, there won't be any need for protection. Israel has never initiated any act of violence, only reacted to it."
Successive Israeli governments have objected to UN involvement in the Administered Territories. There is a fear that a UN presence would create facts on the ground that would define borders and lead to internationally imposed solutions that do not take Israeli interests into account.

Moreover, such forces have proven impotent to prevent terrorist attacks in Lebanon and along Israel's northern border. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was often used as a shield by Hizballah and other anti-Israel forces. The devastating consequences of its presence between the warring forces was brought home during the Israeli Grapes of Wrath operation in 1996, when a stray Israeli shell hit a UNIFIL encampment, causing scores of deaths and diplomatic disaster.

The UN can also provide an opportunity for camouflage and subterfuge. The three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in October along the northern border were reportedly taken by surprise by Hizballah gunmen dressed in UN uniforms and driving a UN jeep.
When you are dealing with a group of terrorists that shuffle suicide bombers around in the back of ambulances they have reason to fear bombers dressing up like UN peacekeepers.

[edit]forgot the link[/edit]http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0009.htm
that's great that we got the Israeli side of the argument. Is there any surprise they would disagree, afterall, they are the occupiers! I wonder what would Milosevic's reaction be if we nicely asked him if he would have allowed UN peacekeepers in Kosovo?

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: lozina
The UN has shown themselves to be incapable to stopping anyone on there own and at many times seemed to aid the Arabs.

Also, with the UN many times politically attacking Israel (at the bequest of the Arabs) why should Israel trust them as a body.

The UN has never stepped in to defend Israel, only to protect the Arab nations from their (Arab) stupidity.

What will the UN involvement buy/benifit Israel. World opinion has never benifited Israel, just forced them to never solve a problem that has festered for many years and becomes more infected.
Oh this is a humorous spin- you do realize you're illigitimatizing the state of Israel with that criticism of the UN? And what's all this mumbo-jumbo about the UN being in bed with the Arabs?! Their resoutions are voted upon by countries accross the world, not a few Arabs! Are you suggesting the entire World is out to get Israel? Somehow all these countries are totally wrong, or perhaps conspiring against Israel? Some sort of global plot to destroy Israel, right? No, none of Israel's actions are criticizable, everything they do is just fine and dandy.
Point by point:
Many of the resolutions have been brought forward by the Arab countries. Also at the time the USSR was mucking around the Middle East.
Many of the countries that voted on the resolution were either under Soviet control of under Soviet influence. The USSR was acting (rightly so) that Israel was a US proxy. They had their proxies act for their interests against the West.

The UN was incapable of stopping border incurrsions from Lebadon and Syria. They were acting more of a trip wire.

I do not like the Israel policy toward the Palestinian civilians, however, they need to have the right to defend their borders.

The Israel occupation was due to the Arab attacks and the need for a reasonable area to defend against. The initial area drawn by the UN was shown to be indefensible.

Israel has returned land that the captured from Egypt, Jordan, Lebadon and Syria in anticipation of peaceful settlement of conflicts. No country took these buffers from them. With the exception of the '67 war, all land was taken after they were attacked, they pushed the invaders back and created a buffer. '67 was a pre-emptive strike.

They have realized that they have to deal from a position of strength as long as there are groups that are determnined to destroy them.
The Arab proxies are not being reigned in because there is no incentive for their sponsor to do so. Hamas and others are not getting their funds to wage war/terror/retaliation from the average Palestinian worker. Who is providing the funds and why?

Israel could settle the problem in another way. Drive out every Palestinian out of the Gaza and West Bank by a scorched earth policy.
There is nothing to stop them from this option.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Good post Eagle.
Result of having teachers who were both Israeli and Arabic.

Worked along side and Egyptian AF officer and with a couple of techs from Iran.
Bunkering down inside Israel will expose you to their side of the argument also.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper


Point by point:
Many of the resolutions have been brought forward by the Arab countries. Also at the time the USSR was mucking around the Middle East.
Many of the countries that voted on the resolution were either under Soviet control of under Soviet influence. The USSR was acting (rightly so) that Israel was a US proxy. They had their proxies act for their interests against the West.

The UN was incapable of stopping border incurrsions from Lebadon and Syria. They were acting more of a trip wire.

I do not like the Israel policy toward the Palestinian civilians, however, they need to have the right to defend their borders.

The Israel occupation was due to the Arab attacks and the need for a reasonable area to defend against. The initial area drawn by the UN was shown to be indefensible.

Israel has returned land that the captured from Egypt, Jordan, Lebadon and Syria in anticipation of peaceful settlement of conflicts. No country took these buffers from them. With the exception of the '67 war, all land was taken after they were attacked, they pushed the invaders back and created a buffer. '67 was a pre-emptive strike.

They have realized that they have to deal from a position of strength as long as there are groups that are determnined to destroy them.
The Arab proxies are not being reigned in because there is no incentive for their sponsor to do so. Hamas and others are not getting their funds to wage war/terror/retaliation from the average Palestinian worker. Who is providing the funds and why?

Israel could settle the problem in another way. Drive out every Palestinian out of the Gaza and West Bank by a scorched earth policy.
There is nothing to stop them from this option.
I don't think anyone will buy the USSR influenced everyone to oppose Israel argument, because the fact is Europeans, South Americans, South East Asians and Africans alike have voted to criticize Israel. USSR, as powerful as they may have been at one point, were not powerful enough to influence the enitre world in such a way. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Russian and sipping Vodka right now.

The UN was incapable to stop incursions based on what, analysis from an Israeli official? If the UN peacekeepers have stopped one suicide bomber from entering Israel and saved a dozen lives, the UN has fullfilled it's goal. With their limited funding and support from the world they couldn't possibly stop everything. And besides, like you already stated (I believe it was you) the crisis with Lebanon was more of a war, much more active resistance, the situation here is occupation with very limited resistance- much easier to control.

I agree, Israel has a right to defend itself, however I question when someone is claiming self defense while holding another person in a head-lock. If they were not occupying territory, there would be no question about their defensive position. Furthermore, you say they should be allowed to defend their borders- exactly, I agree. So why build a wall beyond your borders?

Edit: let me also add that I appreciate you're more civilized discussion, most people on here are very jumpy when it comes to this topic (I myself sometimes). Although we don't have to agree, we can still be respectful of one another's point of view. Thanks

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: lozina


I don't think anyone will buy the USSR influenced everyone to oppose Israel argument, because the fact is Europeans, South Americans, South East Asians and Africans alike have voted to criticize Israel. USSR, as powerful as they may have been at one point, were not powerful enough to influence the enitre world in such a way. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Russian and sipping Vodka right now.

The UN was incapable to stop incursions based on what, analysis from an Israeli official? If the UN peacekeepers have stopped one suicide bomber from entering Israel and saved a dozen lives, the UN has fullfilled it's goal. With their limited funding and support from the world they couldn't possibly stop everything. And besides, like you already stated (I believe it was you) the crisis with Lebanon was more of a war, much more active resistance, the situation here is occupation with very limited resistance- much easier to control.

I agree, Israel has a right to defend itself, however I question when someone is claiming self defense while holding another person in a head-lock. If they were not occupying territory, there would be no question about their defensive position. Furthermore, you say they should be allowed to defend their borders- exactly, I agree. So why build a wall beyond your borders?

Edit: let me also add that I appreciate you're more civilized discussion, most people on here are very jumpy when it comes to this topic (I myself sometimes). Although we don't have to agree, we can still be respectful of one another's point of view. Thanks
with age comes wisdom - thanks for the compliment.

Niceties are now over :D Now back to the discussion.

1) The USSR had a lot of influence over the third world countries. They were not interested in controlling the countries, just influencing the political leanings. They did not want the countries for land (problem controlling the population and expendature of resources), they just wanted the equivalent of a colony and thumb their nose at the US.


Possible sidetrack - The Soviet influence in Eastern Europe was out of fear and to protect their borders. They wanted a buffer zone after WWII. Influence in Africa was due to an anti-west. They supported a lot of the rebellions against the western europian colonial powers.

South America influence by the Soviets was negligible. Cuba was the only strong area. However, previous US bumbles in South/Central America as well as the Hispanic pride of not being under the US thumb did not help the US positions.

South East Asia was recovering from the colonial powers just as Africa was. Red China had a lot of influence - again the problem was not so much of anti Israel, but anti US - Israel was just a way of attacking the big boy on the block. Again Soviet influence had some effects paired with China.

In hindsight the Soviets may not have been as powerful as they seemed, however, a policy of appeasment was the order of the day at the time.

2) The UN may have helped stop a bomber. However, they were put in place to not protect Israel and to provide a buffer zone as to reduce tensions. Many areas controlled by the UN were more of a sieve and the terrorists learned to manipulate the UN troops for their own methods. The UN was also not allowed to take pro-active action.
Lebadon was incurred after Syria refused to shut down the PLO attacks. They had defacto control over the country and were repeatedly warned that the invasion would occur if they did not control their proxies. Israel made a mistake in hindsite to go all the way in, however, at the time they thought that they could clean out the PLO by running all the way into Beruit.

3) The terriority that they now control is a result of what they had before; that was proven to be to vulnerable (multiple times). It was less than 16km to the coast to cut the country in half. Trans-Jordan tried it.

4) The wall is Israel's result of trying to prevent the incursions. All their other options (from their viewpoint) are not working, They are going into a self-containment and building a Berlin style wall to seperate themselves from the enemy. It worked for 40+ years

They are defining the wall location based on economic (minimal), political (medium) and strategic needs.

When the Palestian population is cut off economically, they will start causing demands on the terrorist sponsors.

Their is no USSR, Egypt will not support them, Jordan is weak, Syria is under the gun for assisting Iraq and they still have to deal with the Israel on the Golan Heights. Iraq under Saddam does not exist. Libya is trying to behave. That leaves Iran, Saudi Ariaba (who are now trying to look like they can play nice after 9/11), and other small oil states. Lebadon does not exist. There will be sponsor to assist the trouble makers, but the more the terrorist supply lines have to expand and the demands put on them, the more exposed the lines become and able to be interdicted.

The wall will hurt the Israel economy - labor reduction, however, the amount of expenditures that go into the existing situation will allow them to direct the resources inward.

When the refugee cities can no longer be supported by an economical critical mass, what should have happened 50 years ago will occur. The Palestinian population will migrate into the Arab world unless their (Palestinian) leadership chooses to live within the guidelines of Israel.
The golden rule

The Palestians have been dreaming of the Garden of Eden and in the process let their political leadership promises of Paradise lead them to the gates of Carthage.

They (Palestinian leadership / governemnt / population) are going to have to accept reality and work with what is handed/granted to them. When they show responsiblity (essentiantlythey will be on probation) then they will have the right to ask for additional items. It may not be fair, but the consequences are becoming visible - writing on the wall (pun intended).
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
lozina and Eagle - I agree with both of you. I do not understand Israel's actions with regard to the land and the settlements. But, here is something to think about: there has been an unbalanced focus on Israel to restrain itself from the UN and the rest of the world. There is hardly any for Arafat and his terrorists to restrain themselves. From my vantage point, it doesn't seem fair to criticize Israel without DEMANDING and FORCING and end to the terrorism that goes on in Israel, perpetuated by Arafat and Hamas and the other groups.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: miguel
lozina and Eagle - I agree with both of you. I do not understand Israel's actions with regard to the land and the settlements. But, here is something to think about: there has been an unbalanced focus on Israel to restrain itself from the UN and the rest of the world. There is hardly any for Arafat and his terrorists to restrain themselves. From my vantage point, it doesn't seem fair to criticize Israel without DEMANDING and FORCING and end to the terrorism that goes on in Israel, perpetuated by Arafat and Hamas and the other groups.
From my perspective Israel has ALWAYS acted from a policy of an eye for an eye. It's a tenet of the Jewish faith and something I would be doubtful could be erased from Israeli politics. Any violence against them will be reciprocated in kind for as long as the jewish people can tolerate it. No international pressure, nor influence could ever stop this behavior because it is a key factor in their culture and their religion.

Eagle said everything I have tried to say. I dont' agree with what Israel does and I totally do not condone the settlements but I always felt there was hope that the settlements could be removed if the Palestinians removed violence from the equation. Without ending the violence the Israeli people will never be willing to take on the settlers (who are the radical Jewish faction). Just like North Korea I feel that the time for appeasement and attempts is over, we have to let the current rulers bring the people to ruin so that they realize the mistake in supporting them. This wall will destroy palestine and in that destruction it will hopefully buy the salvation of the palestinian state as the people will realize that cooperation with Israel will benefit them far more than opposition.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
From my perspective Israel has ALWAYS acted from a policy of an eye for an eye. It's a tenet of the Jewish faith and something I would be doubtful could be erased from Israeli politics. Any violence against them will be reciprocated in kind for as long as the jewish people can tolerate it. No international pressure, nor influence could ever stop this behavior because it is a key factor in their culture and their religion.
wrong. an eye for an eye is pure revenge. and the israelis have never stood for it. reprisals against militants/leadership who make bombs and are armed is not equivalent to bombing diners full of women and children. if you cannot see that your blind. for revenge to be satisfying it must be atleast equivalent in destructiveness, and best if it is all out of proportion. and it must come with a certain sense of joy, as it does with palestinians and their terrorist tactics against civilians. just look at all forms of their media for a constant stream of propaganda not seen since nazi germany. from government officials, to government religious leaders all spewing religious intolerance, incitments to violence, glorification of murder, yassar arafats own wife proclaiming that she would be proud of her son if he decided to become a suicide bomber(she lives in france on 100k a month), how the palestinians some how get a pass on this i don't know. they are a people who never changed their official charter that proclaims as its goals to destroy israel through whatever tactics necessary, including terrorism. there is no justice in terrorism, it chooses random innocent victims to persue its political goals.

palestinians might cite their dead as some kind of justification, but look at the numbers. palestinian dead are mostly men, young men. while israeli deaths range from young to old, from men to women. numbers of israeli women killed is all out of proportion for a supposed fiction of an eye for an eye on both sides. here are some statistics. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439


as for the UN, it is no haven for fairness or reason, it is nothing more then a forum of members, many of which are far from adequate to judge anyone. and certainly not likely to see angering an arab league holding vast oil reserves for some tiny jewish state with nothing as something worth bothering with.

MYTH

"The United Nations has long played a constructive role in Middle East affairs. Its record of fairness and balance makes it an ideal forum for settling the Arab-Israeli dispute."

FACT

Starting in the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet-Third World bloc joined to form what amounted to a pro-Palestinian lobby at the United Nations. This was particularly true in the General Assembly where these countries?nearly all dictatorships or autocracies?frequently voted together to pass resolutions attacking Israel and supporting the PLO.

In 1974, for example, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. Arafat did so, a holster attached to his hip. In his speech, Arafat spoke of carrying a gun and an olive branch (he left his gun outside before entering the hall). A year later, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism.

U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an ?obscene act.? Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates the resolution was ?based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance.? Hitler, he declared, would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure.1

On December 16, 1991, the General Assembly voted 111-25 (with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent or not voting) to repeal Resolution 3379. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote and the U.S. role.

As Herzog noted, the organization developed an Alice-In-Wonderland perspective on Israel. ?In the UN building...[Alice] would only have to wear a Star of David in order to hear the imperious ?Off with her head? at every turn.? Herzog noted that the PLO had cited a 1974 UN resolution condemning Israel as justification for setting off a bomb in Jerusalem.2

Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO ?Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People? in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian ?rights.?

In 1976, the committee recommended ?full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their return to the Israeli part of Palestine.? It also recommended that November 29 ? the day the UN voted to partition Palestine in 1947 ? be declared an ?International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.? Since then, it has been observed at the UN with anti-Israel speeches, films and exhibits. Over the objections of the United States, a special unit on Palestine was established as part of the UN Secretariat.

Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the UN system. The special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. A "Special Mission" has been sent by the Director-General of the ILO to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized.3

The U.S. has reacted forcefully to efforts to politicize the UN. In 1977, the U.S. withdrew from the International Labor Organization for two years because of its anti-Israel stance. In 1984, the U.S. left UNESCO, in part because of its bias against Israel, but announced in September 2002 it would return to the organization. From 1982-89, the Arab states sought to deny Israel a seat in the General Assembly or put special conditions on Israel's participation. Only a determined U.S. lobbying campaign prevented them from succeeding. In 2001, the U.S. joined Israel in boycotting the UN World Conference Against Racism when it became clear that it had become little more than an Israel-bashing festival.

While the Arab-Israeli peace process that was launched in Madrid in 1991 is structured on the basis of direct negotiations between the parties, the UN constantly undercuts this principle. The Oslo Agreements are predicated on the idea of bilateral talks to resolve differences between Israelis and Palestinians. The General Assembly routinely adopts resolutions, however, that attempt to impose solutions on critical issues such as Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and settlements. Ironically, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 proposed the bilateral negotiations that are consistently undermined by the General Assembly resolutions.

Thus, the record to date indicates the UN has not played a useful role in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf13.html

MYTH

"Israel enjoys the same rights as any other member of the United Nations."

FACT

A breakthrough in Israel?s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. While only temporary, this historic step could finally end the UN?s discrimination against Israel and open the door to Israeli participation in the Security Council.

Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.

The WEOG is the only regional group which is not purely geographical, but rather geopolitical, namely a group of states that share a Western-Democratic common denominator. WEOG comprises 27 members: all the West European states; and the "others" ? Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

Israel?s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary. Israel was not allowed to present candidacies for open seats in any UN body for two years and is not able to compete for major UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council, for a longer period. Also, for the first two years, Israeli representatives were not allowed to run for positions on the UN Council.

Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices.

In February 2003, Israel was elected to serve on the UN General Assembly Working Group on Disarmament, its first committee posting since 1961 (after 1961, the UN split the membership into regional groups and that was when Israel became isolated). An Israeli representative was elected as one of the group's three vice-chairmen and received votes from Iran and several Arab states. On the other hand, during the same month, an Israeli candidate was defeated for a position on the UN Committee on the rights of the child. The year before Israeli candidates also lost votes for positions on the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the UN Racial Discrimination Committee.4a

In the future, Israel still hopes to gain membership in the Asian group.

MYTH

"The United Nations and its affiliate institutions are critical of Israeli policies, but never attack Jews or engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric."

FACT

The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets ? including xenophobia ? but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."5

Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:

?Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them??? Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.6

?The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.? ?Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance.7 A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.8

On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.9

MYTH

"The 1991 repeal of the resolution libeling Zionism proves that the UN is no longer biased against Israel."

FACT

The vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 ? the very day it repealed the Zionism measure ? the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from ?occupied territories,? including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries ? including those engaged in negotiations with Israel ? Syria, Lebanon and Jordan ? voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt ? which lobbied against repeal ? were absent.

The Arabs ?voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,? the New York Times noted. ?That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.?10


and on and on...http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf13.html has more
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY