I Don't Understand the Israel/Palestinian Problem

Whoops too early with that last post, not that the new news makes my position less correct.If you haven't heard Israel officially announced its policy today.CNN.com - Israel vows 'all-out war' on Hamas - Sep. 2, 2003Here are some brilliant excerpts of their peace plan:"An all-out war against Hamas and other terrorist elements, including continuous strikes at the organization's leaders";"Pressure on [focuses] of terror" in the West Bank; andA freezing of "the diplomatic process with the [Palestinian Authority] ... unless [Israel] sees that the PA is taking tangible steps to deal with the infrastructures of terror."And of course in anticipation of the success this plan will have at achieving peace..."The security establishment is preparing for the possibility of a security escalation and renewed wave of terror against Israel,"Where is there a credible peace plan, when all out war is declared and that war BY NECESSITY will result in the deaths of innocent Palestinians?------------------
holmes

Sorry about that. My posts were not aimed specifically at you, but more at people that might hold your position. I guess you could say I was declaring at the world, not at you. It simply became a matter of convenience to post as replies to your last post.You may notice that I had a mix of replying to Agent and even to my own posts, because I knew I wasn't responding directly to you.But I quickly realized that wasn't the most logical thing to be doing as my posts were in response to your kind of position, and not a response to mine or Agent's.Thus for new readers of the thread I replied to your last post so they could understand what position I was responding to in general, rather than having them scratch their head and wonder why I was posting so emphatically to posts which agreed with my own position.Since this method has become a problem for you, I will stop posting.------------------
holmes

Actually I understood we were in agreement on this point.I took the difference between our positions to be that you thought both sides were equally incorrect in how they are "pursuing peace" through violence, and perhaps (your post's seeming implication) that Palestinians were a bit more guilty of credulity/gullibility in trusting extremists to influence their fate.You also stated that you had no feelings one way or the other on Sharon, and (it would seem) his purpose in using the methods he is employing.My own position is that, while actions on both sides are deplorable, the Palestinians have been forced into an impossible situation and so their seeming credulity is at worst "understandable".The situation is quite the opposite for Israeli and US citizens, neither of whom are living under occupation, and have some voice in (or at least knowledge of) what the men in charge of their governments are doing.Sharon's history speaks for itself, and all one has to due is follow activities in that region to see who is actually undermining the process. And in Sharon's case his purpose IMO is transparent.I would also argue that, not just "understandable", the seeming credulity/gullibility of moderate Palestinians simply an "illusion" generated by Israeli-US policy. Moderate Palestinians have a government that has not engaged in any violent activities towards Israel, and has been trying to continue with the roadmap in spite of everything going on around them. It is only Israel's refusal to negotiate with the moderate government until activities by separate,uncontrolled extremist organizations end, which has lumped moderates and extremists together in the minds of Israeli and US citizens.It is true that Palestinians as a whole don't like seeing other Palestinians getting killed, especially as more innocents get killed in the process. And they don't have much pity for innocent Israelis getting killed when 2-3 times as many innocent Palestinians lay dead, and every day more of their land is getting seized.But this does not mean extremist groups are who the moderate palestinians trust or believe in to negotiate or set policy. That is the Palestinian government, and there has yet to be one attack from that government launched against Israel.Yet Israel undermines the Palestinian government at every turn, and punishes all Palestinians together, which results in increased radicalization of many moderates. Thus Sharon does more to recruit more moderates into extremist ranks, than the extremists do.If every time extremists acted, Israel continued with negotiations while opening a new criminal case against specific extremist groups (for trying to undermine the peace process on top of anything else done), and this was how events were reported (instead of "Palestinians killed more Israelis") we might have a different perspective on how credulous the Palestinian people really are.If you agree with me on all this as well, then I apologize.Just to be safe, from now on--- if I post anything on this subject--- it'll be as a reply to this post. That way it is clear what position I am arguing for/against.------------------
holmes

September 9--- another Israeli incursion, 3 Palestinians were killed including an 11 year old boyBut there is much more important, by which I mean disturbing, news than that.Abbas quit and in quitting vocally pinned the blame on Israel and the US for undermining him in gaining political power. This was an obvious necessity for him to succeed. He had to become more important than Arafat politically, if he was going to survive as a negotiating partner for the Palestinians (since Sharon refuses to negotiate with Arafat).Yet the US and Israeli administrations are spinning this as Arafat's fault. Israel still building its case that Arafat must be removed.Arafat deftly moved to put another man in place... Korei. This guy is an unquestionable moderate and has up until this point been a friend to the US and Israel. He helped broker the 1993 Oslo accords and so his credentials are as unblemished by terrorism and impeccable as a diplomat for peace as they come.Yet Israel has already come out swinging on Korei. Simply because Arafat picked him, and he had worked with Arafat on the Oslo accords (which were unquestionably moderate successes at peace until a Sharon devotee target assassinated the Israeli PM), Israel cannot negotiate peace with him.Is there any question then, who is trying to pursue peace and who is not? A person pursuing peace does not say no matter a person's impeccable credentials and motives I am not going to pursue peace with him, because he's friends with this guy I don't like. That is putting the lives of all parties involved at risk for reasons small children are scolded for using.Korei has not accepted the position yet anyway. He has said he is unwilling to work under an Israelu mandate.Interestingly enough a plan very much along the lines I outlined in an earlier post has been advanced by Korei. It will be very interesting to see how Israel responds to this logical plan for peace, especially as I think that is one of the only chances for peace to succeed. It places power in the hands of moderates on both sides, to make the gains in peace, and so making them future partners against the radicals who stand against them.On top of being logical it seems pretty obvious as well, since it is saying the governments must act as the negotiating partners, and not cede power to radicals.------------------
holmes

Just for the continuing record...There were two more suicide bombings, most likely by Hamas. The first hit a "military target" which were soldiers outside their base. The second was a civilian target at a cafe (I think it was a cafe).As per usual more dead and no advancement of the peace process.Qureia and Arafat denounced the attacks and pushed for continued peace talks despite the violence of radical groups.Sharon and his government officials, in response to these attacks, have called for the elimination of Arafat. Either exile or death.This resulted in masses of Palestinians and even some westerners to swarm to Arafat and announcing they will protect him with their lives.It also resulted in Qureia abandoning efforts to even form a government.It also resulted in worldwide condemnation of Israel's plans.In the face of all these obvious obstacles to peace, springing directly from their plan, Sharon and co say exiling or killing Arafat is the only way peace can be made. One official saying that killing is the primary method with exile as a "contingency plan".Saeb Erakat, a moderate Palestinian negotiator said that if this happens the likely result will be a massive rush to extremism by the Palestinian population... imagine for instance what Americans would be like if someone popped off our President... and that they would likely start shooting moderate leaders.Sharon and co say that there may be rioting for a while but Israel will be able to handle it and eventually things will calm down and peace negotiations can begin.I am uncertain how anyone can spin Sharon and his administration's actions as anything less than "provocative", with an intent to sideline moderate leaders, stalling any hope of a peace process, and pushing moderate Palestinians firmly into the extremist camp. As it is it their saber-rattling has already achieved the first two purposes.And frankly, it looks to me like this all had the more specific purpose of cutting out Qureia, since his government most likely would have unified security forces and his suggested plan of diplomacy was pretty much beyond reproach. In short, Arafat brilliantly undercut Sharon's initial plan to destroy Abbas, by bringing in Qureia. Sharon quickly moved to drown talks of peace in visions of angry Palestinians, to frighten Israelis. Not to mention creating angry Palestinians for the sake of undercutting moderate attempts at dialogue.If it looks like anything else to someone else, I'd love to hear your theory.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-14-2003]

More recently, news has emerged from that incident that Israeli forces once again used innocent Palestinians as human shields while sweeping through the building (so they could plant charges or try to shoot things out with the guy they were looking for was not mentioned). Thankfully no shield was killed, but the practice is regarded one of the signs of a terrorist organization. This would NOT be the first time the Israeli army has used this tactic since Sharon took over.------------------
holmes

Okay so the carnage continues, what can possibly be news in that?Well Israeli airforce pilots are starting to come out against bombing residential areas, in defiance of Ariel Sharon's orders. This is exactly what happened the last time Sharon was in power and before he was tossed out for war crimes. And this time the pilot protests are in writing and sent to the government.One of Sharon's "lieutenants" said that these pilots may be punished. They may punish pilots for refusing to bomb residential areas. Mmmmmmhmmmmm.And more important to a post by Percipient earlier in this thread. The war crimes case against Sharon has at this point pretty much been dropped.Was it do to insufficient evidence? Not at all. It was purely political maneuvering.Sharon tried to have it smashed for years but failed consistently. Then he dropped out of proceedings when he knew he would not win the case in the courtroom. That's when his full court press against the legal system itself began.His first save was to get the Belgian law changed so that sitting heads of states cannot be tried for war crimes. Being a head of state he was immune which is why it appeared the case had failed. It had not. It was only in postponement.Then Sharon had the US put pressure on the Belgian lawmakers to remove the law's protection against anyone but Belgians or those with belgian citizenship. That just went through, for all intents and purposes ending the international war crimes court. It is now a belgian war crimes court. So now he is free from prosecution.What a said day for human rights.------------------
holmes

I had not yet heard about the remote controlled machine guns. f'ing hell.Did you hear Israel is hiring Russian snipers from Chechnya to mount in those sniper nests around Palestinian towns?ps- We seem to have a lot of common interests. I just saw you are a big photoshop artist. As am I. Though I think pulling that ninja homosexual pic out so quickly was impressive, much faster than I work! With all of your excellent knowledge, and your superior comedic/artistic ability, I may not need to post anymore... just watch your posts.------------------
holmes

The problem with citations is that the number keeps changing. Usually you just have to wait till the next round of violence then check CNN or Reuters for the latest casualty figures.But you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to let a biased source (against my position) do some arguing against what I am saying. It is about a year old but the stats are about the same ratio wise (2 to1).In this article the Israeli apologists attempt to explain away the casualty figures which always make Israel look bad...http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439Now just remember this is the BEST case Israel can make to spin the difference (which will be what any doubters will start doing once they see the ratio of deaths).First of all they still could not change the higher numbers of innocent Palestinians killed, even by skewing the definitions. It is about 1.2 to 1 using their definitions.So they then try to skew it some more, let's look at percentages! The percentage of innocents killed versus "combatants" is much higher for Israelis (ie Palestinians kill less combatants than noncombatants). So see, despite the fact that many more Palestinians are dead, its just because Israel is killing so many bad guys, the Palestinians kill many more innocents.That might be an interesting figure except for one thing: the definitions are skewed to favor the Israelis!Look at those definitions. While first giving a caveat to make Palestinians sound like liars, they then bring in categories that are ridiculous. The best one was uniformed noncombatant. That means all soldiers attacked directly by a terrorist, were no conflict was started by Israel, gets counted as "innocents".For example, a few weeks back a Hamas member attacked a bus station filled with soldiers. That was actually an attack on a bunch of soldiers. But by the definitions supplied they all become innocents.HOWEVER, Israel lobbing missiles into a house of an extremist not doing anything at all, counts as a combatant killed (as well as those around him who are "most likely" combatants).What's more aggregious is in the study it goes on to blame the victims by using stats of elderly and women killed to "prove" that it those innocents who were killed weren't innocent at all. Why? Because they were young men! Because there is a higher percentage of young men killed, we can naturally conclude that they were troublemakers willing to hang around situations they shouldn't be.If anyone remembers the horrific scene of a father and young son slowly shot dead by Israelis, or the bombing of boys on their way home from school, these rationalizations just seem pathetic.There probably are more boys willing to engage Israeli troops head on, or be around to watch conflicts when they are best at home. But that is neither an excuse for the mass numbers of young boys killed, nor a suggestion that Israel is less culpable of shedding innocent blood.It is interesting that they don't necessarily take into consideration that men and women mix differently in the two cultures and that if men are targeted, most likely more men would be around than women. In Israel there is much more mixing of genders, not to mention there are women soldiers.What this report does not go into is the methods employed, and other things like mass roundups of innocents (held in prison for indeterminate periods), innocents wounded, and the disenfranchisement of Palestinians on a day to day level.So the best they have... and this is still with the admission that ~2.5 times as many Palestinians wind up dead... is that the numbers of innocents killed is just a little bit more (if every Palestinian extremist is a combatant and every Israeli soldier is innocent), and anyway the innocent ones are guilty of just hanging around to watch.Actually those definitions... I just can't get over them. They see some sort of difference between a suicide bomber and a "targeted assassination"?I guess the Israeli army brings with it some force of purity where their surprise violent engagements can confer the status of combatant on all those they slaughter.------------------
holmes

This is why the major problem in the world today is not islamic fundamentalism, it is ALL monotheistic religious extremism. They all believe in holy wars that transcend ideas of peace and diplomacy.Contrary to your assertion Buz, it is Judeo-Christo-Islamic fundamentalism vs sanity and moderation.------------------
holmes