BS: Palestinian Negotiation

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 11:23 AM

Carol,

you are using the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But I am not surprised that you did not understand my critique.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 01:19 PM

A fairly well understood concept of warfare is that the victors get to take the lands and goods of the losers.

Not according to the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, NH Dave. Israel is a signatory to and is therefore legally bound by these agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 01:13 PM

Wrong thinking and argumentation. Any pre-post comparison suffers from fatal flaws and should not be used in a rational discussion. The correct comparison would be the hypothetical comparison to a no-occupation situation today. And whether in this scenario there would be less terrorism is pure speculation.

Not in the least, Wolfgang. During periods when the Palestinians had hope that they would eventually achieve self-determination (like during the period when they thought the Oslo agreement was actually going to do them some good), terrorism against Israel was reduced dramatically. The cause and effect is direct and provable.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 01:08 PM

So basically the deal that Arafat turned down in order to "kick-off" the Second Intifada would have done the trick, except for a rather major major fly in the ointment - the terrorist groups that Arafat did not control.

This is bullshit, Teribus. Arafat didn't turn it down in order to "kick-off" the Second Intifada. He turned it down because what was being offered to the Palestinians was an apartheid state in which the Palestinians would be confined to tiny bantustans, ghettos, and concentration camps, and in which they would not be allowed or have the ability to move freely between their various tiny imprisonments, and in which they would be allowed to use only the tiniest fraction of their own water (not even enough for basic survival needs, and certainly not enough to keep their agriculturally based economy).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 12:01 PM

The fact that terrorism against Israel has increased since the beginning of the occupation belies any assertion that the occupation has made it safer. (Carol)

Wrong thinking and argumentation. Any pre-post comparison suffers from fatal flaws and should not be used in a rational discussion. The correct comparison would be the hypothetical comparison to a no-occupation situation today. And whether in this scenario there would be less terrorism is pure speculation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: NH Dave
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 03:49 AM

I've come late to this iteration of this particular discussion, so I'll suggest several ideas here.

   Most of the state names we use today came about from the division of the lands of the Middle East, mostly by the British, after WWI, and many of the divisions and heads of states so divided had a lot to do with oil, and the Brit's desire to maintain control over the oil reserves they suspected or knew lay beneath these lands. Prior to WWI, the area was part of the Turkish Empire, that sided with the Germans during the war, and lost most of the lands they owned or at least controlled.

   Jimmy Carter was a kind Christian gentleman, but not a very effective president. His single term of office would seem to indicate that most of the Americans realized this. While he did much to promote peace, his reputation prevented his being effective in securing the release of the Americans held hostage in Iran after the Iranians overran our embassy there, another reason why he was not reelected. Reagan, on the other hand, was perceived as a person more given to direct action or reaction, and this perception secured the release of the hostages shortly after he took office. I suspect that the Iranians realized that Reagan would not stand still while our people were still being held hostage in any country. A local belief in my circles, "What is black and glows in the dark? Iran, after 23 January if the hostages aren't released." I suspect that the calmer heads in Iran also believed this.

   A fairly well understood concept of warfare is that the victors get to take the lands and goods of the losers. While the state of Israel was created by UN mandate, it quickly won several wars that they did not start, and gained a lot of formerly Arabic territory in these wars, some of which they gave back, either gracefully, or as a result of pressure from the US or the UN. Many of the "Palestinians" chose to leave or were forced to leave the lands they had worked for centuries, and became displaced persons, in refugee camps. Somehow they forgot the concept of war that I mentioned earlier, and felt that although they had waged war against the Jewish state, there were no consequences for their decisions to wage this war, or at least support its going forth.

   Ever since these wars there have been more and more "Palestinians" crying for the "right" to return to lands lost during armed warfare against the Israelis. The Israelis realize full well that although there may be land enough for refugee camps for Moslems who lose a war against Israel, the only land for a defeated Israel is the sea to their west! The stated Arabic purpose in this area is to drive the Israelis into the sea! It is also interesting to note that no Islamic nation has offered their own land to resettle these Palestinian refugees.

   These things having been said, the Israelis took a chance to promote peace in their region by giving some of their conquered lands to the Palestinians, even though their own people had built towns and lives on these lands, and had improved the land so it was arable again. So far I don't see anything good coming from this sacrifice, but at least the Israelis have shown that they are willing to sacrifice to bring peace to their region. Can the Palestinians do the same? Not from what I have seen so far.

   Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 02:40 AM

CarolC - 31 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

"All of them want a place to live and be free to be who they are, including the Palestinians. That's why it is incumbant upon everyone of conscience to do everything they can to make sure the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza are preserved for the Palestinians to have as their own. Which means ending the occupation, and honoring the pre-1967 borders."

So basically the deal that Arafat turned down in order to "kick-off" the Second Intifada would have done the trick, except for a rather major major fly in the ointment - the terrorist groups that Arafat did not control.

CarolC, if you managed somehow to get Hamas to state that they were considering the possibility of recognising the State of Israel within the confines of any boundary, that would represent a significant turning point.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 12:15 PM

I fairly much think that once you're born, you "belong" where you're born. Where the hell else would you belong, if not there?

Accordingly, having been born in Canada, I do not use the expression "we did such and such to the Indians(Native Americans)" because I didn't do it.

I believe in reincarnation. You don't know what I was back then. I might just as well have been an Indian, a black African, or a Japanese. You don't know. So don't blame me for something that people with the same skin color as me did long before I was born.

That's just plain ridiculous, in my opinion.

Neither do I feel guilty for whatever apparent advantages I may have gained in this present life by coincidentally being born into a white community in Canada at this particular time. One is not guilty merely by association. One is not guilty for being born into a relatively fortunate circumstance. One is guilty IF one commits harmful acts against others.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 12:01 PM

Who decides? Clearly the ones with the most power decide. But if we don't honor any sort of rules of basic decency, we end up with tragedies such as the genocide of the indigenous Americans, and the Nazi holocaust of Gypsies and Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

Precisely my point all along, number 6. All of them want a place to live and be free to be who they are, including the Palestinians. That's why it is incumbant upon everyone of conscience to do everything they can to make sure the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza are preserved for the Palestinians to have as their own. Which means ending the occupation, and honoring the pre-1967 borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:55 AM

Then CarolC the question stands - Who decides who belongs and who does not?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:52 AM

Any guilt Carol .... newcomers tried to totally 'destroy' a race and their culture ... yes you are interloping on their land that was cheated out out from them.

I understand your passion ... but sometiems you have to take a step back and look at what it is all about. Humans albiet they are Native North American, Israeli, Palestinian and Latvian all have faults. hey,but they just want someplace to live .. and live in peace. Simple, but made so complex by so few.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:46 AM

By "belong to that region" I mean the indigenous people.

Here in the Americas, the people we call the "Indians" are the people who belong here. The rest of us are newcomers (and some would say, interlopers). I know I certainly don't belong to this place. I merely live here.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:44 AM

But I do think it is a good issue for one like Carol to answer.

I find that line very good in this argument ... in having a mother that is Jewish and a fraternal grandmother that is Cree.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:41 AM

"especially if 'belonging' to a place is negated by forefathers having taken the land by force from indigenous races or earlier settlers."

This will be scoffed off as raising "the old canard" ... good excuse to exit from the debate

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:34 AM

CarolC - 31 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM

"Palestine was a region."

That more or less goes along with what I said.

The second part is of course complete and utter twaddle -

"The Palestinians are the people who belong to that region."

Now CarolC did you mean - "The Palestinians are the people who live in that region". Because if she meant what she wrote in her post, I have the following question for her - Who decides who belongs and who doesn't - take great care quite a number of your fellow countrymen will be rather anxious about how this is determined, especially if 'belonging' to a place is negated by forefathers having taken the land by force from indigenous races or earlier settlers.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM

Looks to me like you qualify for all three, Martin. You are the one who advocates policies that are leading to the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:19 AM

Palestine is less recognized then a a sovereign state, such as israel is.

Again. anti-Israel/anti-zionist = anti-semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM

Palestine was a region. The Palestinians are the people who belong to that region.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 11:02 AM

Don T - "Two thousand years ago Israel was a country called Palestine, where Jews and Arabs lived out their lives in peace and unity."

Not so Don, there has NEVER been a country called Palestine, that is very much a 'modern' invention.

"In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of Israel, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the River Jordan valley ." (Source Wikipedia)

With regard to negotiation, there must be a start point that indicates that the negotiating principle will prove fruitful. While Israel has always said that it is prepared to live at peace with its neighbours on the sole condition that they respect and recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace. Hamas now must actually govern, useless threats and empty rhetoric will no longer suffice. For those who wish to promote the path of negotiation, it should not be too difficult to identify who's attitude has to undergo a bit of a sea-change. If it is internationally unacceptable for the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to deny the holocaust and declare his desire that "Israel be wiped from the map", then it is clearly unacceptable for the elected representatives of the Palestinian people to hold the same view.

Now negotiate from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 07:19 PM

Thanks LH

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 07:14 PM

Now, that is the voice of reason. Well said, Divis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 07:11 PM

If you would have used the word negotiation to me ten years ago in my country I would have rejected your offer. Times change and the ballot box has a lot more firepower than the bomb or bullet . The future will prove this. Peace actually can be obtained. As long as people don't keep hitting you up the teeth with your past.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 07:10 PM

You know, when people say that they WILL NOT talk to so-and-so (be it Red China, Hamas, Saddam, Israel, the USA, Iran, etc...) because so-and-so is just soooooo bad and terrible that they cannot bring themselves to hold a dialogue with someone so awful...

Well, they are just finding a convenient excuse to do absolutely nothing new, and nothing to moderate their own hardline position. They are avoiding moving one iota out of their own established prejudice and presumed position of advantage. That's all there is to it.

It's selfish. It's stupid. It's unimaginative. It's self-righteous. It's inflexible. It's a delaying of the inevitable. It's lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 07:02 PM

They lack the means to destroy Israel. That has already been demonstrated. Israel, with far greater firepower, evidently can't destroy them either. So why obsess about what they say when they lack the means to accomplish it? What they say is empty words. What has changed, except the fact that you can now talk to them in an open political arena? What will it gain you to NOT talk to them?

Does hating people make you feel good? If so, why criticize them for doing the same back to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: MAV
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 06:21 PM

No comments that the party that represents the majority of Palestinians has, as a declared goal, the destruction of the state of Israel?

A little harder to say that this is just one madman....

Well...the people have spoken.

The bombing begins in 5 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 04:27 PM

Paul this thread has nothing to do with the Irish. Please keep within the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 03:57 PM

is all this arguing worth it?

I don't know, number 6. I just follow my conscience. It's the best I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 03:10 PM

That should read "interference with the affairs of one by the other MUST stop".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 03:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6 - PM
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 06:58 PM

Don T. .... The following statement is from Mahmoud al-Zahar

"But asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said."

He never denied the call for Israel's destruction.

Definition of destroy from Merriam-Webster:
2 a : to put out of existence : KILL b : NEUTRALIZE : ANNIHILATE, VANQUISH


Don't be disingenuous Six. His comment is about the State of Israel, not about killing its people.

Two thousand years ago Israel was a country called Palestine, where Jews and Arabs lived out their lives in peace and unity. IMHO, if the Jews had moved back into Palestine in 1948 as citizens of that country, there would have been little or no resistence from the Muslims, and we might have seen a return to the original shared existence. Both would have brought their own unique qualities to the situation and Palestine would possibly have progressed to considerable prominence on the World stage. Dispossession of the inhabitants of any country must inevitably lead to conflict (how many young Americans died in the "Indian" wars?).

Unless both sides are prepared to compromise, this situation is beyond resolution.

If the only solution is two separate states, then interference with the affairs of one with the affairs of the other MUST stop. Neither side can pretend a high moral stance here, and the rest of us need to stop perceiving either as essentially right. They are not!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:39 PM

There's no question that many Islamic fighters wish to destroy Israel. I'm sure that many in Hamas wish to destroy Israel. Okay. However, Hamas has now been elected by the Palestinians.

So the sensible thing to do now would be to negotiate with Hamas and see if their newly found status as a ruling political party can move them in a more moderate direction. It's a possibility, isn't it? Wouldn't it help?

What is the alternative? You can't kill them all. That's already been demonstrated.

How do you get extremists to moderate their views if you won't even talk to them?

Demanding that they disarm (which seems to be what the Israelis want...) is unrealistic. It's as unrealistic as someone demanding that Israel or the USA disarm. They are not completely stupid, and they will not disarm any more than the Israelis will disarm. Nor will they promise never again to launch an attack on Israel unless the Israelis promise never again to launch an attack on them...and that ain't gonna happen. ;-)

What you do when you have disagreements like this is...you talk...or you fight. Talking would seem more productive at this point. Fighting hasn't solved anything in the past, has it?

Again, what is the alternative?

Or is this just a question of two groups of people who are both so assured of their own moral superiority and trapped in their own angry rhetoric that they can't be bothered to talk sensibly to each other? (kind of like certain individuals on Mudcat...)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:35 PM

Never mind Carol ... is all this arguing worth it?

I should have stayed away from this thread altogther .

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:03 PM

Guest, Paul - Seems that you are spreading gossip and innuendo. What in the world do they have in common. I mean, whats in it for the Irish? Sure they have empathy for the Palestinians because they have both suffered from the occupation of foreign forces but c'mon, why drag the IRA into this?

Are you trying to say they have a common enemy? I somehow doubt that Catholics and Muslims are collaborating against the British. If so, maybe the British should wake up and stop their acts of aggression on foreign shores. I would like to see some sources for your accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: GUEST,Paul Collinson R.A. Ex bomb disposal
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 01:42 PM

The IRA [Irish Republican Army] had been teaching Palestinian terrorists to build booby-trap bombs for use against Israeli soldiers.Whilst working for the Red Cross several devices I found were identical to those I encountered in Northern Ireland.I discovered more than 200 explosive devices while working in the area.I am convinced the bombs were either supplied by the IRA or made under their supervision at camp there. Many Provo's are known to have been in the area throughout the seventies and eighties. There has always been a close working link between the two groups.Skilled Irishmen visiting the area were feared by the Israeli forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 01:13 PM

I don't understand your question, number 6.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:54 PM

They why don't you just say that Carol and leave it at that (with respect to this thread)

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:39 PM

Carol, what do you call it when Hamas' leader says that it will not end until Israel is no longer there? Blackmail is blackmail.

I agree. That is blackmail also. And I do not now, nor have I ever, defended Hamas or their position in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM

BTW: The USA and USSR were involved in the ultimate 'nuclear blackmail' with their MAD policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:29 PM

"This is nuclear blackmail, Peace."

Carol, what do you call it when Hamas' leader says that it will not end until Israel is no longer there? Blackmail is blackmail.

My fear during the Gulf War was that the missiles launched by Iraq would contain chemical or biological entities. That would have left the Israelis no choice. Don't make the assumption that I think it's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:25 PM

Thank you, Paul Glickstein. I am grateful for your posts in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:19 PM

What the F*#k are you trying to get across with that one ... lay a guilt trip on me because I'm Canadian

I'm saying that if you support the occupation, and you do not pay taxes in the US or Israel, and you do not live in the Palestinian occupied areas or serve in the Israeli military there, then, yes, you (and all others who support the occupation but don't bear the real costs of it) are playing fast and easy with other people's money and lives. And I stand by that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:03 PM

IMO, when Israel sees it has nothing to lose, there will be a nuclear strike against all their enemies in the mid-East.

This is nuclear blackmail, Peace. Israel will never have "nothing to lose". If Israel would decide to do what you have described, the suffering of the Israelis will be far greater than that of Israel's neighbors. Because the Israelis will die much, much more slowly from the after-effects of it's bombs than the people it targets. Only stupid people would do something like that. I don't think Israelis are stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: GUEST,Paul Glickstein
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 11:38 AM

Policies have repercussions, sometimes bitter ones. The historic election landslide victory of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Palestine on January 25 was merely a confirmation of this basic fact. Palestinians simply voted in a manner that reflects their reality. Secular Palestinians are not thrilled to see an Islamist movement come to the forefront of the historically secular Palestinian struggle to end the occupation and continue with the state-building process. However, those of us willing to look beyond the daily headlines, which emerge out of professionally spun mainstream media, are fully aware that Hamas' victory does not emerge from a vacuum. Palestinian reality in year 2006 is three-fold. There is the bitter reality of 39 years of a non-stop Israeli military occupation that has battered the Palestinians beyond recognition, but failed to break the Palestinians' will and determination to ascertain the basic human and national rights that are justly due to every indigenous people. Then, there is a decade, some would say four decades, of a monopoly on Palestinian politics by the moderate Fatah movement which mismanaged and abused its position of power to a point where the average Palestinian saw their governance serving the Israeli occupation more than serving the needs of a people hemorrhaging from an unrelenting Israeli onslaught.
Non-violent resistences have failed
Lastly, Palestinian reality today, after trying all possible non-violent methods to jerk the international community, particularly the U.S., into assuming its responsibility toward a people under occupation (as per the Geneva Conventions) have been left naked to take on their occupier single-handily, all the while, being coerced into becoming totally dependent on the crumbs and political agendas of donor aid.
Initial knee-jerk reactions from Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv indicate that, not only have the U.S. and Israel failed to acknowledge that decades of aggression against Palestinians was sooner than later bound to result in bitter repercussions, but they arrogantly abolish themselves of any responsibility for this reality. Palestinians under occupation were left with little other choice, but to express their despair and frustration by electing into government a movement that many believe speak the same language as Israel has been speaking to Palestinians for almost four decades now, the language of force, both political and military.

Instead of heeding to Palestinian's advice and to the facts on the ground, the international community preferred to only send international observers to oversee the most democratic elections process that has ever happened in the Middle East, despite the occupation's boot remaining on the neck of the Palestinians. Now it is the world's duty and responsibility to accept the outcome of the elections. Each and every country will need to redefine how it will deal with the sober reality that, once again, now by way of the ballot box, the Palestinians have provided them.

The U.S., under President Bush, has caused so much havoc within U.S. foreign policy that the U.S. will now find itself a hostage of its own hastily drafted internal polices. Political wisdom, not Presidential evangelism, is what is required from Washington today. For the first time since the Oslo Peace Accords, Palestinian priorities are being set independent of foreign agendas. The donor community, led by the U.S., can choose to bring the Hamas government to its knees financially. This would be short-sighted and catastrophic for the region at large. Alternatively, Hamas can be given the needed time to reflect on their election victory and define a set of policies that coincide with their new position which will require them to be held accountable on a national and global level. Speculation is a risky business in the Middle East, but if Hamas'victory is viewed as a pilot project by Islamist movements in the region, we could expect them to excel in installing a better system of governance which has the potential to positively affect every Palestinian citizen. If they fail, they should only be removed through the same ballot box that they won by. Accept this Hamas are there.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 10:52 AM

Hamas ... they're a fundamentilist theocracy...

Hmmm... theocracy... Like Israel, you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 11:53 PM

"Number 6, it is not a cheap shot. I pay for that occupation with my taxes and with the loss of good will toward my country because of my government's support of it. You do not. The Palestinians and the young men and women who serve in the Israeli Defense Forces pay for the occupation with their lives. You do not. I think this distinction is important."

What the F*#k are you trying to get across with that one ... lay a guilt trip on me because I'm Canadian ... you are one fanatic ... that is lunacy. Are you saying I should shutup and not express my views ... or as you say "playing fast and easy with other peoples lives". That is an insult. I think I have expressed myslf well enough here that I am not insensitive to issues of injustice, and that human life is cheap.

Why do keep straying away from the subject of this thread ... no, you have to keep bringing up that old 'canard' as you say about the occuppied land of the 1967 war.

Why the hell don't you post a separate thread on that issue ... layout it all out in a line for a seperate debate instead of trying to goat everyone you can in threads such as this.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 11:32 PM

I am in total agreement with that statement Carol. I guess what I am grappling with is that as we who live here are the beneficiaries of an immoral act (the occupation of North America) how do we reconcile that with condeming others for the very same act as that from which we are benefiting?

That one is easy, Bobad. What we do is speak out against injustice when we see it being practiced around us in the world right now. It's too late for us to prevent what happened to the indigenous people of the Americas in the past. But we can speak up about continued injustices that they are experiencing today. And we can speak up about injustices that are being done to people in other parts of the world in our name.

That is what I am doing here in this thread. You can do this too, if you want to. Maybe if people had done more of this sort of thing in the past, we wouldn't have so much to be sorry for right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 11:24 PM

Carol C, all Jews are citizens of Israel. Destroy the country and you rip out the heart of all Jews.

It is no different for the Palestinians. The Palestinian people are their connection to the land. You destroy their connection to the land they have lived on, loved, and become one with for more than a thousand years, and you destroy Palestine, and the Palestinians.

I do not advocate destroying Judaism (hence my belief that Israel should remain... within the 1967 borders), but you ARE advocating the complete destruction of the Palestinian people.


Number 6, it is not a cheap shot. I pay for that occupation with my taxes and with the loss of good will toward my country because of my government's support of it. You do not. The Palestinians and the young men and women who serve in the Israeli Defense Forces pay for the occupation with their lives. You do not. I think this distinction is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 09:10 PM

Well ... that is one of the beliefs of the Hamas ... they're a fundamentilist theocracy ... no wonder the Palestinians are now squabbling amongst themselves ... Hell I wouldn't want to follow the new government of the Hamas if I was a Palestinian.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 09:01 PM

6, please tell that to the ones who are promised 7 virgins in heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian Negotiation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 08:48 PM

Peace ... I'll post this one last time.

""Whatever one believes in politically, philosophically, or least of all theologically the promotion of genocide, violence, hate is not acceptable. We have had way too much of that in the past, it has to end sometime, at least for the sake o humanity. Humanity, that's what is being overlooked in a lot of these posts."

sIx