If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well, Clandestine has just clearly proven his lack of credentials in the area he claims expertise. Do a little research, your above statement is WRONG. It's a common point used by those who haven't actually researched the issue, but have listened to the political spin of those who support Arafat and company. Have a nice day. :cool:
Hmmm... assumptions, revision of history, and more personal attacks.... must be the standard 1, 2, 3 count of the myopic right wing!
Nevertheless, Greenhat leaps before he looks in his bid to discredit anyone who doesnt bend to his "reality" whatever that may be... and once again he's wrong:
http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/Water.html
http://www.btselem.org/English/Water/Control_over%20_Water_eng.asp
http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/intifada2000.html
But then of course he has his crystal ball i suppose and sees some truth the rest of the diplomatic world doesn't. Hmmm... could Greenhat be a new prophet perhaps? lol. :rolleyes:
Maybe your research should have included these:
Agreement
Appendix
That and all "agreements" stemming from the Madrid summit, Oslo accords, and Camp David 2000, if youd actually read - instead of immediately presuming any contrary argument to your preciously (but wrongly) held views on the matter must be unworthy of consideration - you would see are considered in total when referring to the breakdown of the whole process.
But then perhaps in your "reality" what it says on an agreement and what both parties have done (or more rightly haven't done)to bring those words to fruition are two vastly different things.
But that's perhaps too much reality for such a discussion, after all we wouldnt want your righteous and all knowing shell to crack and force you to admit being wrong about anything.
Unlike yourself, I have admitted to being wrong. Missed that, didn't you?
And since we are discussing what people have agreed vs. what they have done, maybe you should relook at that agreement and what Arafat agreed to, and didn't actually do.
And maybe we could even look at what Saddam agreed and hasn't done.... oops, I'm not supposed to bring that contradiction up, am I?
Yes, it is clear that the Palestinians did not hold to their side either, however, one must also look at which events preceeded which and where the loss of faith on both sides stemmed from.
Shortly after the signing of the interim agreement, Rabin was killed by an Israeli extremist ushering in the Netanyahu government which had layed out its intransigence to the process as regards Jewish Settlements, Palestinian borders, the fate of Jarusalem, and water issues.
This was followed by an equally intransigent Barak governement.
In the face of watching the hope inspired by these agreements and proposals dissipate, it is understandable if certainly not right that Hamas and other organisations returned to their normal routine. The Israeli status quo was in no mind to change either before or after these agreements, so what progress is that? Perhaps by some warped military reckoning the behaviour of Israel in this breakdown matters not, but lasting peace requires political compromise, something Likhud is demonstrably unwilling to do, even when Arafat showed that the Palestinians were.
http://www.poica.org/casestudies/geopolitical%20situation/
Another little excerpt for you:
Statistics show that Israeli encroachments on Palestinian rights rose significantly after the signing of the Oslo II agreement in September of 1995. Prior to the agreement, the violations were scattered and relatively low compared to those after it. See Figures 1 and 2. The graph shows a sharp rise in lands confiscated starting from the last quarter of 1996. It seems that after signing the agreements and examining the performance of the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis felt they had nothing to fear and that they could go about creating facts on the ground with impunity. Those who were misled to thinking that it was Netanyahu’s government that was responsible for stalling the peace soon realized that the Barak government was no better. In fact, Israeli sources have confirmed that the Barak government has approved the construction of housing units at a quicker pace than that of his predecessor. This, if anything, shows that Israeli governments feel at ease in dictating their version of peace.
The logic of “might makes right” cannot make a just and lasting peace. If this peace is to be a comprehensive and sustainable peace, it must rise up to the Palestinian’s legitimate claim of self-determination, national independence, and equitable distribution of economic dividends.
And another excellent economic analysis of the breakdown of the process...
http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/Farsakh.doc
excerpt:
The Interim Agreement in itself confirmed Israel’s territorial claims and did nothing to diminish its ability to unilaterally close the borders whenever and for how long it deemed necessary. The implementation of Oslo simply confirmed Israel’s power and emphasized its ability to continuously impose its territorial control over the WBGS, often to the detriment of economic growth and continuity.
This reality is well captured by Israel’s recurrent use of border closures and permits policy. Israel unilaterally closed borders with, and between, the West Bank and Gaza Strip for more than 443 days between 1994-1999(UNSCO 2000). More recently, as a result of al-Aqsa Intifada that erupted on September 28th, 2000, over 50 days of closures have thus far been were imposed. Closures means that goods and people, be it managers or workers, could not access Israel or the world. At certain times, it also means that access between the various parts of the West Bank and links with the Gaza Strip were severed. These closures were often unpredictable and implied that all economic activity came to a halt. Moreover, Israeli permits condition Palestinian economic life. Unlike the situation prior to 1993, access of goods and people to Israel or the world hinges on permits issued by the Israeli security services. These measures have increased transaction costs, enhanced unpredictability and brought a halt to all trade and investment. Between 1993-1996, the total cost of closure and permits was estimated at a total of $2.8billion (Diwan et Shaban 1999b; 6). This is equivalent to 80% of one year’s GDP and double the amount disbursed in terms of aid over this period. The preliminary estimate cost of each day of closure in 2000 was reported at $9.4million dollars, the equivalent of 60% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip estimated daily GDP.
While Israel justified its use of closures to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the military establishment admitted that these measures do not provide an effective means of controlling entry into Israel. Moreover, the duration and repercussions of such measures were not always justified on economic or security grounds (Sabbagh 1998). Closures often ended up being a political bargaining tool to pressure Palestinian leadership into making concessions. This was seen, for example, when the government of Netanyahu refused to pay the PNA tax clearance until they cracked down on “terrorism”. Closures, though, ran counter to the aim set out in the preamble of the EP, namely that “both parties shall cooperate…to establish a sound economic base for (their) relations”.
Israel’s unilateral recourse to border closures confirmed two central realities; firstly, that economic prosperity in the WBGS is dependent on access to Israel and through it to the world, and secondly, that Israel is imposing new criteria for defining and conceding territorial rights. According to the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, the permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. This means that territorial sovereignty will be determined by these two resolutions. These emphasize that Israel is a belligerent country and must retreat from areas it occupied in June 1967, according to the internationally agreed criteria of land for peace. However, with Israel’s closure policy and the Wye River agreement signed between the Palestinians and Israel in the US in 1998, Israel has introduced a new notion for defining its retreat from the land. This criterion is no longer “land for peace” as UN resolutions 242 and 338 stipulates. Rather the criterion that Israel is introducing is one of “security for peace” as defined solely by it. This means that Israel defines the land from which it is going to retreat on the basis of what it determines to be in line with its security. In this respect, for example, Israel has long said that it would not retreat from all areas of the Jordan valley, as this is important to protect its borders. By the same token, it justifies its claim to annex areas around Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in order to protect Israeli settler citizens. Yet, such criteria run counter to UN resolutions as well as the 4th Geneva Convention that applies to occupied territories. Israeli imposed criteria for its retreat from land it occupied in 1967 means that Palestinian right to self determination, to their land and to a viable state is being further violated.
It is understandable that they returned to terrorism? Then it surely must be understandable when they are exterminated like wild dogs.
Should check your militancy at the door, Greenhat.
No matter how much dark is the tunel there will be light at the end and the palestinians will have their state. what is wrong is always wrong even if Bush and Sharon see it and deny it. how to get there though is the question and until then thousands will keep be killed from both sides. Yesterday the Britain Ambassador to what is called Israel said to the Israeli officials that they have turned WBGS to the biggest jail ever in the world holding 3.5 m people prisoners. what other words can be said more than that? The full scale blown up of the palestinian volcano has no irrupted yet.
Nevertheless, part of any workable settlement would have to include demonstrable recognition of the legitimate sovereignty of each state by the other. We have the wording down pat in past accords, now all that remains is the cessation of "making new facts" on the ground as Israel does constantly with reference to (amongst other elements) the expansion of settlements and the establishment of further "Israeli only" roads that effectively prevent economic improvement to large portions of the Palestinian population, and the improvement of each side's future prospects might be achievable.
Of course, the hawks prefer to see only the violence of one side and not the imposed conditions which are fueling it and preventing the PNA (for all its known flaws) from effectively controlling it.
Well, you sure had me fooled.
So tell me...how do you deal with rabid dogs?
Why, you negotiate with them. Talk nice about them. Take them out for evenings with your friends. Take them into your home. Trust them with your family...
They are rational, right? Simply misunderstood?
A little appeasement would work wonders... or so certain persons seem to think...
If this is the case then why haven't you won yet?
How come Rabies hasn't been eradicated?
Why hasn't rabies been wiped from the face of the earth?
Might it be that them who would negotiate with the infected are standing in the way? Animal rights, and all that...
Might it be that you are unwilling to deal with the metaphor because it is all too accurate?
You are then entering into the mindset that there is no rational reason for terrorism and that those who commit are either 'mad' or less then human.
Thinking like this is a major reason why the Hawks will never solve the problem because they fail to look at the real reasons for it occurrence preferring to dismiss them and look immediately to short-term violent 'solutions'
And believing that there is a rational reason/solution for terrorism is why the "we know what's good for you" political idealists will not let terrorism be dealt with in a manner that has a chance of success. People who take part in terrorism are, by definition, criminally insane. They are unable to take part in society as a whole because they are unable to tell right from wrong in a manner that is relevant to the survival of the society. Of course, the leadership often can tell, but they don't care. For them, it's all about power, and letting their "causes" be solved is to abdicate their power. There is NOTHING rational about targeting and killing civilians in an effort to gain political goals. It just pisses people off and puts the goals that much farther away. Maddogs and Englishmen...
"Entering"???
Which of us has been stuttering?
Has been the basis of our collective perspective, all along.
Strange how you share the perspective when discussing IRA "scum", but get so bashful when it comes to Arafat's crew...
Translated...(Not by me)
Think one could draw parallels between this poem, and some siters.
They did their own talking.
Was Israel founded on irrational behaviour?
You'll have to ask the British.
And what do you think they'll tell me (assuming that your sentence above isn't completely without meaning)?
In any kind of a war civilians get hurt and may be killed and they are who take the hardest hits. The rational behind attacking civilians in a war is to hurt the enemy any way and where. Sounds very rational since the military who believe in preserving civilians in a war actually kill civilians and consider it a mistake, but no body calls it a terrorist attack its called a “mistake”, a mistake what a joke. US bombs killed more than 150 people in a shelter in Iraq and they blamed it on an old map, what a load of crap. How many mistakes the military need to commit before we starts to call these so called mistakes terrorist attacks?
How many times this happened lately in Palestine. Where is the rational behind that a mistake which keep happening 10 times a day!!!. At least the bombers are saying clearly to the other side all of you are the enemy and we are not claiming it’s a mistake. Now if you want to argue that civilians should be avoided in any war and they should not be part of struggle, I agree % but then what the US did to win the war against the Japanese in WWII ?? Can that be classified as a terrorist attack? The principle of “the end justifies the means” started a long time ago. The US itself would not be as it is now if the early settlers did not do what they did against the original owners of the land who many of them are civilians. The examples in history are so many.
Life's a bitch, huh?
Its saddam that has moved his military inside civilian areas. Why no harsh words for him?
Look at the whole US air campaign in Afganistan, minimal civilian casualties. OTOH, Saddam gassed the Kurds, iranians, and shiite muslims living in southern Iraq...
Very few afganis died as a result of US actions, over a million died as a result of saddam's actions..
If you are concerned about civilian casualties, seems your pointed in the wrong direction...
Yes they are, most of us have seen Braveheart, read about India and other places.. Point is, if people want to throw trash, they might start with their own..
Strange how killing civillians for 'political goals' by terrorists is so terrible to you but killiong them to fulfil the political goals of our leaders is justified to you........
When did I say that exactly?
Yep. If the partisans had targeted civilians, they would have been wrong. Generally, they didn't.