Article

2004-07-22 Israel-Palestine

EU says their vote in UN doesn't mean they are anti Israel

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2004-07-22 9:05:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 On a resolution concerning the wall, (which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border, just what the Palestinians claim, but according to Israel itself it does not, it's merely an "security obstacle") it's quite clear that it's not the rightness or wrongness, the lawfulness or unlawfulness, the morality or immorality of the wall *itself* that must be judged, but rather whether the resolution "encourages" the Palestinians to avoid their obligation or not. Quite clear.

Ofcourse even the slightest criticism of Israel would have been an encouragement to the Palestinians, therefore Israel must never be criticized.

And as a sidenote, everyone with the exception of America, Australia, Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands are ofcourse "anti-Israel". Any condemnation of any country on any issue means that you automatically hate that country's guts and want it to cease existing.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 10:13:33 AM|| 2004-07-22 10:13:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Wow, palestinians use the same language and take the same attitude, and haven't yet garnered a peep of protest for THEIR attitude. In fact, when that UN envoy even hinted that maybe PART of their problem was Arafat, he was banned and villified.

The point Israel made is that the Wall demonstrably works to reduce terrorism. The point the UN made is that the facts don't mean jack: tear it down and ACCEPT THE CASUALTIES. The UN and other NGOs love to point fingers assigning responsibility for catastrophes, but disavow the responsibility for Israeli civilian casualties caused by THEIR demand for a protective wall to be torn down. "Causality and responsibility is for OTHERS, not for US" they screech.

However, I think we should cut Aris some slack: The European idea of governance is that the national and transnational structure is all, and that citizens are mere appendages, subject to being sacrified for the greater good unless doing so causes a riot that would, you guessed it, threaten the national/transnational structure. France does nothing to stop anti-semitism, since it does not threaten the apparatus of state governance. They've tolerated a low level fever of terrorism for years. rather than REALLY crack down on them, due to oil supply access concerns (among other things): I know, because my mom lived there for a couple of decades, knows the language, saw the news, and lived that shit every day. Paleo support? It's all about OOOOOOIIIIILLLLLL!

REAL democracies (including, but not just, the USA and Israel) realise that the people ARE the state, and that the supreme responsibility is to protect the populace. Even opposition to the Patriot Act springs from concern of government inflicting harm on the populace. Aris' poor little brain can't handle anybody else except a Euroweenie nation caring more for its citizens than it's stature in international circles, a concern of primary interest to, you guessed it, the national/transnational power apparatus. The priority inversion probably appears senseless to him, but proper and logical to Israelis and Americans.

Posted by Ptah 2004-07-22 10:50:50 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-07-22 10:50:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 (which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border,

1. I have never said its a new border.

2. In context, I think an abstention was an acceptable stand. Which Canada and several other states took. Which the EU states could have taken, but did not.

3. This does not mean they "hate Israel" It is, together with other statements and actions, a sign that they are biased against Israel, and perhaps not viable at this point in time as active participants in the negotiating process.

4. I continue to await a UNGA vote on the situation in Western Sudan.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 10:56:02 AM|| 2004-07-22 10:56:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Meanwhile, real people are dying by the thousands in Sudan and the UN does NOTHING about it but talk. How can anyone take such an organization seriously?

Posted by virginian 2004-07-22 11:08:03 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:08:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 "On a resolution concerning the wall, (which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border, just what the Palestinians claim, but according to Israel itself it does not, it's merely an "security obstacle"...
In point of fact, the Green Line was never a border but a cease fire line, established in the '67 War.
And then there was the Yom Kippur War of '73 when the Israelis won more territory.
These lines have been played with in the Camp David and Oslo Accords and the Paleos were supposedly trading land for peace, but of course, they've never given peace or given up terrorism for land.
So the war goes on and the fence will continue to go up.
And it would help alot--now that the PA is imploding--if both the UN and the EU would stop throwing the evildoers a rope.
But noooooooooooooooooo.
They have to push for the annihilation of the nation of Israel and the talking shops of the world thugs help.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 11:11:37 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 11:11:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The European idea of governance is that the national and transnational structure is all,

The European idea of governance is that a country doesn't have the right to go building walls on a territory that self-admittedly isn't theirs.

The European idea of justice is also that the innocent must not be punished for the deeds of the guilty.

The point Israel made is that the Wall demonstrably works to reduce terrorism.

The point that Israel *didn't* manage to make is how a Wall located on the Green Line wouldn't equally work to reduce terrorism in Israel. The point that Israel *didn't* manage to make is how the wall is really for the security purposes of Israel, rather than the security purposes of *illegal settlements* -- illegal because they are located on territory that Israel *itself* doesn't claims belongs to it.

The occupied territories are supposedly a "security buffer" themselves, right? Rather than annexed territory?

And you should really cut down on the whole caring-about-the-citizens pretend act, Ptah. I understand you well enough to know that this doesn't include Muslims, be they innocent or guilty. Or atleast I don't remember you, Christian as you pretend to be, to have *ever* opposed torturing mere "suspects" of crimes. If you are a Christian you belong to the Spanish Inquisition/Salem burnings branch of Christianity.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 11:17:59 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:17:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 And then there was the Yom Kippur War of '73 when the Israelis won more territory.

Not according to Israel itself. My understanding of the matter is that Israel doesn't claim it won more territory, the same way that USA doesn't claim it won territory in Iraq. It's only *occupying* more territory. If I'm wrong on this, Liberalhawk correct me.

One significant difference is that the USA hasn't established dozens of permanent American settlements throughout Iraq.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 11:23:32 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:23:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Aristotle, as I just explained, the Green Line is merely an old cease-fire line.
The territory belongs to the Israelis--they won it in battle in, '47, '56, '67 and '73.
They may have negotiated it away in exchange for peace, but those deals are dead, especially Oslo and they've recently reworked the 1979 Camp David accords.
When it became apparent to me that murdering Jews was way more important to the Paleostinians than developing a vibrant economy and making a killer like Arafat accountable as an "elected" leader was of no importance to them when it's obvious that they get boatloads of money from the UN and EU, I ceased to care about the Paleos well-being.
They belong in Jordan and Syria and not on the West Bank!
And BTW, Sharon is having them dismantle the settlements.
(And I've told you that before! Read the JPost for Gawd's sake!)

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 11:27:07 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 11:27:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I think part of the problem is that international law has never been adjusted to deal with terrorism. International law does not account for the fact that suicide bombers ride red crescent ambulences, that materials for suicide bombs are kept in schools and hospitals. Worse, International law does not account for the fact that an entire society could be fundamentally terrorist supporting. This is because International law was developed before the age of the suicide bomber.

If Israel has a right only to arrest terrorists once those terrorists cross the greenline (i.e., no right of preemption), then Israel's population is sentenced to death (which would probably be fine with most of the EU biggies).

If Israel does have the right of preemption, then premption by a fence modestly outside the green line is far more humane than preemption by checkpoints.

Posted by mhw 2004-07-22 11:38:25 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:38:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 "The territory belongs to the Israelis"

As I just told you, not according to Israel itself. Because if the territory belonged to Israel then the question of voting right for all Palestinians would arise. So the territories are simply "occupied", rather than annexed.

"And BTW, Sharon is having them dismantle the settlements. And I've told you that before"

You told me that before, but it's a clear mistake on your part. Only a handful of the settlements are dismantled, not ones like Ariel.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 11:38:34 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:38:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 As I just told you, not according to Israel itself. Because if the territory belonged to Israel then the question of voting right for all Palestinians would arise. So the territories are simply "occupied", rather than annexed.

the territories are not annexed. This does not mean Israel does not consider itself to have a claim. Rather it considers that both sides have claims, and any final border must be determined by NEGOTIATIONS betweent the PARTIES. Meanwhile Israel can put its TEMPORARY fence wherever it feels a need, including a place that protects settlements whose FINAL STATUS IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (though it is widely expected that in any final agreement most WILL be annexed to Israel, albeit with territorial compensation to the Palestinians elsewhere)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 11:46:00 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:46:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Well Aris if I were King of the World for a day the new fence would be the border no matter how much bitching the from Arafart. Also I would allow the Israelis to annex another ten kilometers for every ATTEMPTED terrorists attack and 100 for every successful one. I call it my âLand for Peaceâ plan. Also I would allow the Israelis to expel everyone that resides on the new land they acquire. Sooner or later the Palestinians would run out of land or stop the terrorists activity. I would offer the Palestinians financial bonuses for every month that there are no terrorists attempts and another bonus for every terrorists (Hamas, Heballah, etc) that they capture and put in prison. I call this my âCash for Good Behaviorâ program. FYI the money would go directly to both the people and the government on a 50/50 split so they both have a stake in the program. And the Leadership would be forced to spend the money on social or infrastructure projects and no skimming into personal accounts. The Israelis (as their partner in peace) would monitor where the money goes and for what.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-22 12:12:09 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:12:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 the west bank was part of the hashimite kingdom and not israel proper...though they may have a claim it would be to israel's detriment to incorp this area as part of their country...it would be the end of the two state solution..

if israel is a true democracy then the notion of one man one vote applies....and this would in effect have israel cease to be a jewish state and be a majority paleo state...

if they do annex the westbank and do not give the vote to it's citizens then israel would become a true aparthied stateâ¦ and that is no one's interest...

Posted by Dan 2004-07-22 12:18:14 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:18:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Well, I was being technical and practical with Paleo-lover Aris and using only modern day Israelis warfare and politics as the p;parameters, but actually God gave the nation of Israel the lands of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") a long, long time ago!

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 12:26:04 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 12:26:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Jen> But the Israelis haven't been following god's law to stone adulterers. What's up with that?

God gave me Canada, btw. He did it last Tuesday. Honest he did.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 12:32:53 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:32:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Your mockery of our devout faith isn't endearing you to me.
As if it could, you Paleo loving scum.

I can't, don't and won't explain how or why Jews--Orthodox, Hassidic, Reformed, etc.--observe the Laws in Israel but I believe that Jews and Christians both decided that rules like stoning adulterers in the Old Testament were too severe and judgemental for Modern men of faith.
Jews and Christians both went through Reformations, which is why we have it all over Mooslims, who have no problem with executing "adulterous" women, See Taliban.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 12:40:04 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 12:40:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 You lie Aris, Toronto belong me.
I am likely to overrun Ludawici next.
Death to speed traps!

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-22 12:41:34 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:41:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Never mind Aris, you keep Toronto, I will lay siege to Tarpon Springs.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-22 12:45:15 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:45:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Liberalhawk> "Rather it considers that both sides have claims, and any final border must be determined by NEGOTIATIONS betweent the PARTIES. Meanwhile Israel can put its TEMPORARY fence wherever it feels a need, including a place that protects settlements whose FINAL STATUS IS YET TO BE DETERMINED"

First of all the settlements were created only after the occupation, as a result of the occupation -- so it's bizarre to then justify the tools that the occupation uses by reason of needing to protect the settlements.

It leads to the idea that the wall is not used for security, but instead in order to make the viability of the settlements possible, which were in turn made for purpose of land annexation in a disputed land. (And that's the *nice* theory, btw, because the nasty theory is that it was made in order not just to protect the settlements or even to annex land, but in order to hurt the Palestinians as punishment, or seclude them as a prison.)

Secondly, even with that question out of the way, wouldn't it depend on whether the rest of the world truly saw that wall as a temporary security measure, as opposed to a tool for negotiation or a defacto border or a punitive measure? Many people in this forum *did* see this wall as either a defacto border or a tool for negotiations, rather than as something "temporary" and solely meant for reasons of security.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 12:49:03 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:49:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 You want Canada Aris its your,praise be God.:)

Posted by djohn66 2004-07-22 12:54:33 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:54:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Jews and Christians both went through Reformations, which is why we have it all over Mooslims, who have no problem with executing "adulterous" women, See Taliban.

Indeed -- the reason that Jews and Christians (in general) have it all over Muslims (in general) is that the Jews and Christians have (in general) understood that it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.

And thus Jews and Christians have redefined their conception of God's laws to be closer to what *human* morality told them they *should* be.

Good for them! This agnostic-leaning-to-atheist applauds.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 12:55:51 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:55:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Wait a second.....The Danforth is already yours Aris ;)

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-22 12:56:31 PM|| 2004-07-22 12:56:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.
LOL
finally something .com and Aris can agree on.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-22 1:01:37 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:01:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 ak

the EXISTENCE of the wall is to stop terrorism - the LOCATION of the wall east of the green line is to protect settlements which exist on the disputed territory, and perhaps as a tool for negotiation (which by the way, does not mean its not temporary - by adding cost to a final border anywhere OTHER than the route of the wall,it means the Pals may have to give up more to move the line - but thats NOT a permanent border)

As for what people here on this forum think, thats irrelevant. Though the keepers of this site are fine and dandy people who post lots of really kewl info, many of the posters here are total loonies, I think you would agree. I mean really, is the State of Israel responsible for everything said by any loonie who happens to support Israel?

And er, for all the non-Jews here posting on Jewish belief and practice, if you spent as much time learning about Judaism as arguing about it, you would learn much.

Oh, and AK, most of the early Zionists were quite secular. The bible is important largely as a source on Jewish history in the land (secular bible criticism if anything STRENGHTENS the claim, since it turns out that the Jews probably DIDNT take the land from the Canaanites - they probably WERE the Canaaites) and to provide an understanding of the continued yearning of the Jewish people for its land throughout the exile.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 1:03:14 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:03:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Uh, Aris--wrong again, you atheist Paleo-loving scum!
After Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." at a public stoning, the zeal and fun went out of the activity pretty quickly after that even for the most religious law abiding Jews.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 1:12:03 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 1:12:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Liberalhawk has the best read on this. The purpose of the wall is for security, but its location is a bargaining chip - they can trade the "extra" land for something else later. Of course, the paleos haven't been too willing to give peace for land. They had a chance with Barak and blew it.
BTW, if you look at the history of Israel from the Balfour declaration on, the Jews were first promised all of what is now Israel and Jordan, but declared independence in a much smaller territory, added to that after independence (the greenline), and finally occupied the west bank after the 67 war (in which they were attacked). The west bank has always been a combination security buffer and bargaining chip.

Posted by Spot 2004-07-22 2:07:15 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:07:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 re stoning:

In a famous debate of the Mishnaic era - around 100 to 200 CE:

one Rabbi said : a High court that issues more than one death penalty in a generation is a bloody court
another Rabbi responded: if we followed your opinion, murders would multiply in the land.

IE the death penalty was thought of, even by those who were relatively supportive of it, as basically applying only to murder. Biblical calls for death for lesser crimes were interpretated away.

There is less evidence for the state of jewish law at the time of Jesus, since there is no written "offical" Jewish legal source between the bible (last books dated to circa 300BCE) and the Mishnah (completed 200 CE). The mishnah cites the opinions of older scholars, some from the time of Jesus, but theres no proof those citations of what at the time were 170 year old opinions are accurate. In lieu of such a source, we have the NT (partisan as far as Jewish law is concerned), Josephus (unreliable), and more recently the Dead Sea Scrolls (problematic since they are the documents of a minority sect)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 2:40:44 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Interesting background on Talmudic law, Lh.
Thanks.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 2:43:18 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 2:43:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 to clarify further - adultery is still TECHNICALLY a capital crime in Jewish law. This matters, since capital crimes have unique features in Jewish law. For example its permissible to violate ANY Jewish law in order to save a human life EXCEPT to commit a capital crime. Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 2:45:56 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:45:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 #1) Aris' answer to everything seems to be a fanatical devotion to his personally-developed religion of secularism/globalism--which he believes will solve all of the world's problems. As "God" in that context, he considers himself to have ascended to the level of "Expert" regarding anything he discusses. It's his religion against other religions, in these discussions, basically. At least, that's the main thing for him--all other things being subserviant to that worldview of his. In fact, Aris is probably the most "religious" person on Rantburg.

#2) Plenty of Israelis (and some Palestinians) would like peace, but most Paleos won't deal. They have an "all or nothing" vendetta grudge-holding approach to the world, and cannot develop a sensible government of their own so that they can negotiate, develop, improve. Or maybe they just like to fight--fighting is easier than assuming responsibility for self-determination. It's a bad situation for the Paleos that would like to explore other options.

I think Cyber Sarge's ideas hinge on a kind of carrot-on-a-stick, last-ditch attempt to get the Paleos to do what would be in their own best interest. Try it--you'll like it (?)

Aris: if the Turks were invading Greece with multiple terrorist attacks over many years, and there was a chance to build a big wall to protect yourself from the attacks--and the only other option would be to die or give up your land to the Turks--what would you, as a Greek, do? Curious.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-07-22 2:54:05 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:54:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 yet another problem with using a text like the Mishnah to determine actual practice at the time - there are situations where the Mishnah discussess something purely theoretical in detail. Remember, they considered the Bible to be the word of G-d, and the legal system they were elucidating to be divinely ordained -ERGO it had to be logically complete, and there had to be basis for answering every case about it, even if said case didnt actually come up in daily life. We see thats a problem in precisely the area we are discussing, stoning:

We come now to the most difficult (and grisly) part of the tractate: the actual carrying out of an execution - the judicial killing of a man or a woman found guilty of a capital crime. No amount of apologetics will cover up the fact that up to a certain point in Israel's history such executions did take place. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that when they were carried out that it was according to the procedures described in our tractate! On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the procedures that will be described in ... our tractate were purely the result of academic extrapolation: two preconceived basic premises determined the form of midrash to be used on the Biblical texts. There is no other way to explain how there could have been a difference of view between Rabbi Yehudah and the rest of the sages on such a particular detail of procedure as whether there was or was not any difference between the execution of a man and the execution of a woman as regards their clothing. It must be that they are not describing a historical reality, but that their difference derives solely from their hermeneutical elucidation of the Biblical text.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 2:59:21 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:59:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 ex-lib, since your post doesn't have any connection to anything I said, I should properly ignore it both as where it claims to pertain on myself (personally developed religion of secularism/globalism? What?) and also in the questions it asks.

But since you asked so very nicely, I am telling that I would support the exact same thing I'm also supporting in the case of Israel -- which is the existence of the wall. Not that you knew about it, since you only hear your own foolish assumptions about me echoing in your head.

"The purpose of the wall is for security, but its location is a bargaining chip "

Which is probably the reason I feel that its existence in general is both morally justified and absolutely necessary, but its chosen location both illegal and immoral.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 3:12:04 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:12:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't the defense of Israel also allowed to violate shabbat? So I expect we fight over the meaning of murder.
/angels on a big ass pin

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-22 3:38:46 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris I just want to say:
You feta pushing, Ouzio swilling, goat grabber.

There. I feel better now.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-22 3:41:02 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:41:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 It's spelled Ouzo. :-) Otherwise you are good to go.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 3:52:14 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:52:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't the defense of Israel also allowed to violate shabbat? So I expect we fight over the meaning of murder. /angels on a big ass pin

1. to save a human life is not only permitted its obligated to violate laws such as shabbat
2. Yes, the resistance against those who would kill you certainly warrents violating shabbat. No dispute there from any jewish authority, even the most pacifist.
3. Is targeting a terrorist murder? I think almost any mainstream authority would say no. I think extending it to a planner/inciter like Yassin would trouble few authorities. How much care must you take with collateral damage - well thats difficult, but this is not really any different than the Western laws of war. Of course most Orthodox authorities in Israel are fairly right wing, and so would lean over to justify an attack. Conservative Jews are few in Israel, and Reform Jews arent to big on Jewish law anyway.

Really interesting question is nuclear deterrence. Collateral damage is one thing - deliberaretely taking an innocent life is another. When you fire a rocket at a terrorist you can argue that if all goes well no innocents will die - you can hardly argue the same thing about nuking a city. Yet if you piously refrain from being willing to nuke a city, how do to you deter - during the cold war this would have meant turning the world over to the USSR, hardly an acceptable real world solution.

A Conservative Rabbi I know wrote a book on this subject back in the '80s, when this sort of thing was a bigger topic. I didnt read it and dont know what answer he came up with.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 5:06:52 PM|| 2004-07-22 5:06:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Aris-a few simple questions, hopefully answered concisely:

1.) Do both Jews and Arabs deserve justice? Is it the same justice?
2.) What do the Palestinians have to do for their part of the Plan?
3.) Should Palestine face criticism for allowing/encouraging/assisting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc to carry out homicide bombings? If yes, which countries in the UN would stand behind that criticism?

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-22 5:20:53 PM|| 2004-07-22 5:20:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Putting me to some sort of test, Jules?

1) "Do both Jews and Arabs deserve justice? Is it the same justice?"

Yeah. Though consistently "justice" seems to me less important than either "freedom" or "prosperity", since I don't accept "justice" as a goal on itself but only as a means towards ensuring life, liberty and the chance to pursue happiness.

2) "What do the Palestinians have to do for their part of the Plan?"

Reject terrorism, disavow the "right of return", accept the right of Israel to exist.

3) "Should Palestine face criticism for allowing/encouraging/assisting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc to carry out homicide bombings?"

Sure. But as a sidenote I'm not sure whether it's the Palestinian authority that allows Hamas/Hezbollah to exist or vice-versa -- those terrorist groups that allow the Palestinian authority to exist. In short I'm not sure who has the knife on the other guy's throat.

"If yes, which countries in the UN would stand behind that criticism?"

Not the Arabs. Nor the Russians or Chinese. And the French seem to have recently gone on some maniacal trip, so I'm guessing not them either from sheer spite.

Other than that, tough to tell. Many European countries have already criticized the Palestinians AFAIK.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-22 6:22:50 PM|| 2004-07-22 6:22:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Around these parts (southern Arizona) Feds are building new heavy duty fences and obstacle devices on U.S (To'hono O'oldham reservation) / Mexican border. Indians are being forced to take lengthy detours to visit relatives on other side of the border.
______________borgboy

Posted by borgboy 2004-07-22 8:15:28 PM|| 2004-07-22 8:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 #6 The European idea of justice is also that the innocent must not be punished for the deeds of the guilty.

Here's an interesting poll:

"Support for bombing attacks inside Israel drops from 58% last December to 52% in this survey. But a large majority of 86% opposes arresting those who carry out the bombing attacks, and 67% (compared to 61% last December) believe that armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinian national rights in ways that negotiations could not."
EMPHASIS ADDED

With some 86% of Palestinians approving of terrorism in principle, I fail to see where any vast number of innocents are being punished for the crimes of a few.

#12 I would allow the Israelis to annex another ten kilometers for every ATTEMPTED terrorists attack and 100 for every successful one. I call it my âLand for Peaceâ plan. Also I would allow the Israelis to expel everyone that resides on the new land they acquire. Sooner or later the Palestinians would run out of land or stop the terrorists activity.

It's hard to beat this basic approach. A sufficient number of mass murder terror attacks will result in the Palestinians crowding themselves onto a ragged postage stamp of land.

#15 But the Israelis haven't been following god's law to stone adulterers. What's up with that?
God gave me Canada, btw. He did it last Tuesday. Honest he did.

Thank you for placing religious proclamation into proper perspective, Aris.

#19 ... the nasty theory is that it was made in order not just to protect the settlements or even to annex land, but in order to hurt the Palestinians as punishment, or seclude them as a prison.

Which they richly deserve and have been struggling mightily to obtain.

#21 Indeed -- the reason that Jews and Christians (in general) have it all over Muslims (in general) is that the Jews and Christians have (in general) understood that it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.

"Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to make a maggot, and he makes Gods by the dozen.". -- Michel de Montaigne -

#29 Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.

So, I'm not allowed to impregnante my neighbor's wife, even though her infertile husband has threatened to commit suicide because they have no children? Sheesh, no good deed goes unpunished.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-22 9:20:12 PM|| 2004-07-22 9:20:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 "Lethal fatuity characterises the United Nationsâ treatment of Sudan and Israel." -The Daily Telegraph

Posted by virginian 2004-07-22 10:21:40 PM|| 2004-07-22 10:21:40 PM|| Front Page Top

12:09 alex B.
11:54 Anonymous6488
10:43 Anonymous5901
13:27 Anonymous5891
00:06 Zenster
00:05 Fred
23:48 AzCat
23:46 Zenster
23:39 borgboy
23:38 borgboy
23:36 borgboy
23:34 borgboy
23:32 Super Hose
23:30 borgboy
23:26 OldSpook
23:23 Jarhead
23:15 Silentbrick
23:01 cheaderhead
22:57 J Chirac
22:54 ed
22:51 ed
22:49 jackal
22:46 cheaderhead
22:33 Barbara Skolaut